dismissedNOV032021_01B52032021-11-03 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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, holding a PhD in international studies, sought to continue research on foreign countries' geopolitical challenges, propaganda, and national security policy while also potentially teaching as an assistant professor.
Field: international relations / international studies · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her U.S. doctorate.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the endeavor has national importance”
“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such activities would impact the field of international relations more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and university she may serve”
“she has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate these claims”
“we question what the Petitioner's proposed endeavor actually involves and note that the purpose of a national interest waiver is not to afford a petitioner an opportunity to engage in a U.S. job search”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”
“The Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence of her expertise and experience in research that is independent from the support and established platform provided by her former faculty research supervisor”
“such a citation record does not persuasively support the Petitioner's claim that her work is widely recognized”
“the past funding she received for her consultancy work has no bearing on her positioning to advance her proposed endeavor”
“the past success the authors described is insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner is well positioned to carry out her future endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“few authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor... these letters do not assist in our understanding of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“such a citation record does not persuasively support the Petitioner's claim that her work is widely recognized”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the past funding she received for her consultancy work has no bearing on her positioning to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“we note discrepancies both in whether the Petitioner is currently employed as a professor, as well as whether her intended employment is as a professor or solely as a researcher”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered data on how many articles she has peer reviewed in relation to other researchers in her field”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“we conclude that this fellowship does not support a finding that the Petitioner's reputation in the field positions her well to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,589coded 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 explicitly withdrew the Director's favorable finding on national importance (a rare reversal in the petitioner's disfavor) and treated both prong 1 and prong 2 failures as independent, alternate bases for dismissal.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of V-K-
- 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