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.
A postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow proposed to continue research across geology, environmental science, climate research, and oceanography, without settling on a specific research project or line of work.
Field: geology / environmental science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record indicates the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we can glean nothing from this vague statement about your proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“it is unclear how the effects of his work would extend beyond the students he would instruct during the course of such a fellowship”
“Without sufficient documentation regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his specific work”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified his proposed endeavor and therefore does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The documentation submitted in support of the petition relates to the Petitioner's past research rather than his future plans”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The documentation submitted in support of the petition relates to the Petitioner's past research rather than his future plans”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The documentation submitted in support of the petition relates to the Petitioner's past research rather than his future plans”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“These emails do not sufficiently articulate the proposed positions and most of this correspondence post-dates the filing of the petition.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner titled his appellate submission 'Motion to Reopen' but the AAO treated it as an appeal based on the Form I-290B designation; petitioner characterized the Director's vagueness finding as 'legally preposterous.' The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three after finding prong one 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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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