dismissedJUN302026_02B52032026-06-30 · appeal
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 pavement engineer with a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, proposed to conduct applied research on sustainable pavement engineering using recycled materials to reduce the carbon footprint and improve durability of transportation infrastructure, including a planned senior research position with a state or national pavement research division.
Field: pavement/civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his Ph.D.; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“We withdraw USeIS' conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.”
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“she did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific technique has been utilized in the roadway construction industry.”
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders him well positioned”
“a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that his work has impacted or advanced the field”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner rather than his professor (Dr. H-N-) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“The record, however, does not include a letter or other corroborating evidence from the... expressing interest in the Petitioner's services”
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field, or otherwise shows success or progress”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner rather than his professor was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“A degree in and of itself, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Unsupported assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has satisfied their burden of proof”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,358coded 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
The AAO explicitly withdrew USCIS's negative finding on prong 1 (national importance), fully crediting the endeavor's merit, yet dismissed solely on prong 2, reserving prong 3 as unnecessary under Bagamasbad. The decision nonetheless closes with boilerplate stating each ground is an 'independent and alternate basis' despite only one prong being adjudicated adversely.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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