dismissedJUN062024_04B52032024-06-06 · appeal · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a teaching assistant/researcher pursuing a doctorate in instructional design and technology, proposed to research and develop AR/VR-based educational tools, including a Learning Resources Rubric web system, while seeking an assistant professor position in the United States.
Field: instructional design and technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish her endeavor has broad implications in the field of instructional design and technology, as contemplated by Dhanasar”
“the supporting documents generally discuss the industry and do not specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor as having a broad impact on the field”
“the record does not contain independent and corroborating evidence that focuses on her innovative research or unique technology platforms”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her university or her students to impact the field of education”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts her into a strong position to advance her proposed endeavor”
“these limited articles do not represent a level of her success in the field”
“being published in journals or having a certain number of citations does not sufficiently 'prove that the petitioner's research is influential or considered a record of success'”
“the author does not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
“the notice elaborates on how to submit a proposal and does not show that the Petitioner was actually awarded the grant”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“being published in journals or having a certain number of citations does not sufficiently prove that the petitioner's research is influential”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author does not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the notice elaborates on how to submit a proposal and does not show that the Petitioner was actually awarded the grant”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts her into a strong position to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner did not explain the significance of her review experience”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO found the Director mischaracterized the endeavor's framing was not an abuse of discretion, and clarified that Dhanasar does not require side-by-side comparison of petitioners' achievements to the precedent petitioner; declined to reach prong 3.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl