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 researcher in clinical tissue engineering, intended to work as a senior research scientist in the U.S. developing allograft bioimplant products (e.g., bone, skin, and tissue scaffolds) to improve organ donation and transplantation outcomes.
Field: clinical tissue engineering and transplantation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“these letters do not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field”
“he does not provide the citation rate for these articles in the year that they were published”
“the record lacks evidence sufficient to establish the Petitioner's pursuit of such employment or of these companies' interest in employing him”
“it lacks sufficient evidence to explain or demonstrate how he will have access to the means and financial support”
“The record is therefore insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“he does not provide the citation rate for these articles in the year that they were published”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“education and skills are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“education and skills are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record lacks evidence sufficient to establish the Petitioner's pursuit of such employment or of these companies' interest in employing him”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
Notable
AAO rejected Petitioner's argument that SCOPS abused its discretion under Buletini by allegedly failing to consider all evidence, clarifying that agencies need not address every piece of evidence individually. AAO also distinguished EB-1 'extraordinary ability' evidentiary standards (citation impact factors) from EB-2 NIW criteria, finding the Petitioner's reliance on EB-1 policy manual provisions misplaced. The decision is dispositive solely on prong 2; prongs 1 and 3 were expressly reserved.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- 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