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 materials chemistry PhD researcher proposed to continue research on smart polymers and nanomaterials for applications in energy and water remediation.
Field: materials chemistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The record supports this conclusion.”
“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's novel absorbents have been implemented in the”
“he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the materials chemistry field.”
“did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the”
“This paper, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 43 other articles he cited to in his paper.”
“the authors do not distinguish the Petitioner's paper from the 39 other papers they referenced.”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles at the time of filing reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research.”
“Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to smart polymer development.”
“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has been implemented”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the other articles he cited”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not shown that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
This is a revocation case (NOIR/revocation of a previously approved I-140), not a denial appeal; the AAO applies the Matter of Ho 'good and sufficient cause' revocation standard alongside the Dhanasar framework. The AAO engages in an unusually granular citation-counting analysis, comparing the petitioner's citation counts to co-cited papers and critiquing timing mismatches between Clarivate, Google Scholar, and Microsoft Academic data sources.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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