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 transportation researcher, proposed to continue research aimed at improving travel demand forecasting accuracy using passively collected big data, including developing quick-response forecasting models and methodologies to estimate demand in environments with emerging vehicle technologies.
Field: transportation research / travel demand modeling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D. and Master of Science); not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“His experience and expertise as a transportation researcher, published articles, citation evidence, record of success contributing to various government-funded research projects, and progress in his field position him well to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“we conclude that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- resume experience · credited
- citations publications · credited
- funding · credited
- degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
- other · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This is a grant decision — the AAO sustained the appeal and found all three Dhanasar prongs satisfied. The decision is heavily redacted (b)(6) throughout, obscuring the specific modeling methodology, employer/institution, and supervisor names. The AAO explicitly applied the USCIS Policy Manual STEM positive-factor framework under prongs 2 and 3, noting the Ph.D. in a STEM field tied to the proposed endeavor as an especially positive factor. The Director had already conceded EB-2 eligibility, so the sole issue was the NIW waiver analysis.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Combination of federally-funded research (FHWA), high citation impact, expert letters tying his modeling work to national transportation planning, and STEM PhD satisfying policy manual factors.
Pair government-funded project involvement and independent citation metrics with expert letters explicitly linking technical work to national-level infrastructure or competitiveness goals.
moderate
field_advancement · us_competitiveness · economic_growth_generic
mixed
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