dismissedMAY272026_05B52032026-05-27 · 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.

The Petitioner, a chief engineer at a sustainable building studio in China with a Ph.D. in architectural engineering, proposed to conduct research and development in building technology and to promote its implementation and commercialization in the United States, potentially at a national laboratory, university, or high-tech company.

Field: architectural engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the reference letters upon which SCOPS, at least in part, based this determination contain material misrepresentations”

“the Petitioner has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating his endeavor's substantial merit”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“Because the Petitioner willfully made material misrepresentations by submitting falsified evidence in support of his eligibility for these prongs ... he has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his eligibility under either prong two or three”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“Because the Petitioner willfully made material misrepresentations by submitting falsified evidence in support of his eligibility for these prongs ... he has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate his eligibility under either prong two or three”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“three of the four letter writers confirmed that they did not draft, write, or sign the letters of reference”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

Where this case turned

NEW fraudulent evidence · p1
NEW fraudulent evidence · p2
NEW fraudulent evidence · p3

1coded 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

Unusual procedural posture: while the NIW appeal was pending, AAO issued a NOID based on a fraud-unit investigation revealing that three of four submitted reference letters were fabricated, and the fourth was suspect. AAO not only dismissed the appeal on the merits (finding all three Dhanasar prongs unmet due to the tainted letters) but also made an affirmative finding of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation of a material fact, rejecting the Petitioner's claim that an unidentified third-party consulting agent was solely responsible.

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
Matter of D-R-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer