dismissedMAR172026_01B52032026-03-17 · appeal · SCOPS 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 Senior Data Scientist, proposed to develop advanced mathematical programming and machine-learning-driven solutions for large-scale real-life decision-making problems to improve industrial efficiency, drawing on expertise in bi-level optimization, interdiction modeling, and generative AI.
Field: industrial engineering / operations research / data science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO confirmed the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering); threshold not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she has established that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which her specific work has been utilized in the industrial engineering field.”
“she has not demonstrated that her participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field”
“Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, she has not demonstrated her work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned”
“The articles in the record cite to her work as an example of research done in the field or in their introduction section as part of an overview of current research, but none highlight or comment upon her research in a way that demonstrates she is well positioned”
“while her Ph.D. renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's record of obtaining research funding renders her well positioned.”
“she has not demonstrated the significance of her awards and their level of prestige in the field of industrial engineering”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“she did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected industrial engineering applications, or otherwise shows success or progress at a level that renders her well positioned”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, she has not demonstrated her work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“she has not demonstrated the significance of her awards and their level of prestige in the field of industrial engineering”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“while her Ph.D. renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- other · discounted
“she has not demonstrated, however, that her participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in her field”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's record of obtaining research funding renders her well positioned”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
249coded 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 reversed SCOPS on prong 1 (national importance), finding it satisfied, but affirmed denial on prong 2. The decision includes a notable comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner himself, rejecting the argument that the Petitioner's citation count exceeded Dr. Dhanasar's, clarifying that Dhanasar's well-positioned finding rested on funded government grants (NASA, AFRL) rather than citations. A potential postdoctoral offer from Dr. V-X-C- was noted but did not help because no funding details were provided.
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