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 civil engineer with a Ph.D., proposed to benchmark cost, schedule, and change-order performance of state Department of Transportation projects to develop strategies improving efficiency in current and future infrastructure projects.
Field: civil and environmental engineering (transportation infrastructure) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we conclude that it is contrary to record before us to characterize it as containing no evidence that seeks to establish this requirement”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the decision does not analyze the evidence in the record at it relates to these factors”
“primarily relying on an "influence standard" was an approach that we explicitly rejected in Matter ofDhanasar”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“SCOPS did not discuss the enumerated factors of the third prong at all”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- other · credited
- degree · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO remands not because the prongs were affirmatively failed on the merits, but because SCOPS mischaracterized the record (claiming no evidence existed when evidence had been submitted), gave inconsistent RFE-versus-decision findings depriving Petitioner of notice, relied on an improper 'influence standard' explicitly rejected in Dhanasar, and failed to analyze the enumerated third-prong factors at all. AAO expresses no opinion on ultimate eligibility.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS mischaracterized the record as lacking evidence and misapplied Dhanasar's second/third prong factors (relying on rejected NYSDOT 'influence' standard), and gave no notice of deficiencies before denial, warranting remand.
Petitioners should ensure adjudicators apply Dhanasar's specific enumerated factors per prong, and preserve appeal arguments where RFE findings and final decision conflict without notice.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
mixed
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