dismissedMAY012025_08B52032025-05-01 · 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 clinical research scientist, sought to continue research in the U.S. on the neurological and mental-health effects of Long COVID.
Field: clinical neuroscience / Long COVID research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional based on her master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not provide any specificity related to where she will perform her proposed endeavor.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in an economically depressed area.”
“the Petitioner has not submitted specific evidence related to her particular proposed endeavor that establishes that her endeavor will rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the author does not provide insight into the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the document provides no explanation as to how the Petitioner intends on employing any clinician or researcher”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“did not show how [her] proposed endeavor has broader implications in [the] field of neuroscience”
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
2,589coded 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's analysis was confined entirely to Dhanasar prong one (national importance); it expressly declined to reach prongs two and three as unnecessary to the disposition, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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)
- 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