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 medical physics researcher, proposed to develop an improved semiconductor detector using cadmium telluride (CdTe) for small field dosimetry in radiation therapy, aiming to improve accuracy and lower costs in cancer treatment.
Field: medical physics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on foreign equivalent master's degree in medical physics; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we are persuaded by the probative and credible evidence in the record ... of the substantial merit and national importance of improved radiation therapy for cancer patients”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has established the substantial merit and the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“we do not consider the Petitioner's efforts in this study to be a positive factor in the second Dhanasar prong.”
“the positive weight of the Petitioner's research and citation record is reduced because of the questions regarding her authorization to engage in her most highly cited work.”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of funding from investors, research institutions, or government entities.”
“we conclude that the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · discounted
“the positive weight of the Petitioner's research and citation record is reduced because of the questions regarding her authorization to engage in her most highly cited work”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of funding from investors, research institutions, or government entities”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- NEW unauthorized research undermines citation record · p2
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO withdrew several of the Director's Prong 1 findings, including explicitly holding that the Director committed legal error by applying the vacated NYSDOT 'track record of success' and 'degree of influence over the field' standards under Dhanasar's first prong. However, the AAO independently found Prong 2 not met based on a novel issue: the Petitioner's failure to establish she was authorized to use a export-controlled Monte Carlo (MCNP) code in her most highly-cited prior research, which the AAO used to discount the weight of her citation record and research success under the second prong, ultimately proving dispositive.
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 Izummi
- 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