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 MEMS researcher and device engineer, proposed to continue research on the design, fabrication, characterization, and optimization of next-generation MEMS devices/sensors for applications requiring high-speed operation.
Field: microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) / electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering).
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The letters of support and other corroborating evidence in the record are sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed research aimed at advancing MEMS technologies has substantial merit.”
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, we conclude that he meets the fust 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 methodology has been implemented in the robotics industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's ... detection technique has been utilized beyond his Ph.D. supervisor's company or has otherwise attracted a level of interest in the field”
“This article, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 40 other papers referenced in the article.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the electrical engineering field”
“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, we agree with the Director”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's methodology has been implemented in the ... industry or otherwise constitutes a record of success”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“This article, however, does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the 40 other papers referenced in the article.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the record lacks supporting evidence showing the stature of the journal”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner ... has not demonstrated that his occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · credited
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific 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
Notable
This is a revocation case: USCIS approved the I-140 then issued a NOIR and revoked it. On appeal, the AAO withdrew several of the Director's adverse credibility findings (e.g., regarding a defunct company's lease/address and a digitally-signed reference letter, holding the signature-policy memo inapplicable to reference letters) and found prong 1 satisfied, but still dismissed the appeal on prong 2 as an independent, dispositive basis, declining to reach prong 3.
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)
- INA 203(b)(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