dismissedMAY122026_01B52032026-05-12 · appeal
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 physicist proposed to complete his part-time postdoctoral research project on condensed matter physics (spin waves/magnons), followed by preparing a future research proposal and applying for academic, laboratory, or industry research positions in the U.S.
Field: condensed matter physics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional and this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, which is dispositive.”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposal to complete his postdoctoral research project... followed by a yet-to-be-determined research proposal... may have national importance.”
“he does not claim-and the record does not support the conclusion-that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake may have substantial positive economic effects, such as significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“Condensed matter physics indeed holds significant [sic] merit and national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“it does not establish how the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake may have national or even global implications within any particular field.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not establish the significance of the number of citations the Petitioner's 'not numerous' research publications had received”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the specific endeavor... may have broader implications indicative of national importance.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO rejected updated Google Scholar citation data submitted in response to the RFE as impermissible post-filing evidence under Katigbak/Izummi, and further noted that even this new evidence showed the petitioner's publications received few additional citations.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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