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 postdoctoral research fellow, proposed to continue biomedical research on the molecular basis of certain diseases, including the role of a specific gene/function in disease modulation.
Field: biochemistry and molecular biology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director determined that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor and we agree.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
“none of the papers appear to highlight or otherwise distinguish the Petitioner's work from the other cited articles”
“they do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's findings have affected . . . therapies or that her research has been sufficiently implemented”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her supervisor . . . ) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects”
“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“none of the papers appear to highlight or otherwise distinguish the Petitioner's work from the other cited articles”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's findings have affected . . . therapies”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner . . . was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she did not provide any documents to demonstrate the requirements for selection”
AAO decision text
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
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable second-prong finding sua sponte despite Director having found both prong 1 and prong 2 satisfied, dismissing solely on prong 2 while expressly 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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed Dhanasar prong 2: citations and peer-review roles were not shown to distinguish her contributions, and grant funding/letters did not establish she—rather than her supervisor—was primarily responsible for advancing the endeavor.
For prong 2, show personal attribution of funding/citations and concrete evidence your specific findings altered practice or field discourse—generic praise letters and shared credit are insufficient.
moderate
field_advancement · public_health
person_focused
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