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 biomedical scientist pursuing a PhD, proposed to study the genetic basis of cleft lip, cancer, and COVID-19 to support development of more effective therapies and improve patient care.
Field: biomedical science / genetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not submit the required translator's certification for his foreign academic documents, so he did not establish he holds an advanced degree, a threshold EB-2 requirement, despite SCOPS having earlier indicated in an RFE that this requirement was met.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence analyzing the impact of Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor such that it rises to the level of national importance”
“they do not elaborate on the basis for the Petitioner's specific claim that his research would lead to developing effective therapies”
“the Petitioner did not show how these sources calculate the percentile figures provided”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit the translator's certification, as he asserts”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not elaborate on the basis for the Petitioner's specific claim that his research would lead to developing effective therapies”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner did not show how these sources calculate the percentile figures provided”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO faulted SCOPS for reversing its own prior RFE finding that the advanced degree requirement was met, and expressly noted SCOPS was not required to issue a second RFE even though it could have. AAO also explicitly withdrew SCOPS' apparent characterization that the endeavor lacked substantial merit, finding merit was satisfied but national importance was not.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
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