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 doctoral student and research assistant proposed to continue using big-data analysis of public datasets to replicate and validate lab-based organizational behavior research, covering topics such as gender in online editing, cannabis use and productivity, immigrant work behaviors, and healthcare management guidelines.
Field: organizational behavior / business research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner's master's degree in business research satisfied the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“This evidence establishes the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“he has shown that his proposed endeavor has the potential to impact the field of organizational behavior and will be widely available”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts him into a strong position to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“does not show a record of success relating to his proposed endeavor.”
“This evidence thus does not show that the Petitioner's publication and citation history reflect a record of success in his field, or that relevant individuals ... have shown interest in his proposed endeavor.”
“the relatively low number of citations across the board renders a comparison by percentile rankings almost meaningless.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the relatively low number of citations across the board renders a comparison by percentile rankings almost meaningless”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the reference letters did not establish his "substantial influence in the field"”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this level of education puts him into a strong position to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's prong 1 findings (substantial merit and national importance both established), a relatively unusual outcome, but still dismissed the appeal on prong 2, criticizing the Petitioner's use of journal-ranking and citation-percentile evidence as methodologically misleading given the small, recent publication set.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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