NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV182025_06B52032025-11-18 · 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 proposed to optimize Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce renewable energy-based synthetic fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, e-naphtha) to convert fossil fuel refineries to renewable energy processes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Field: chemical engineering (Fischer-Tropsch synthesis / renewable fuels) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (Ph.D.).

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We agree with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized in the renewable energy industry.”
“he does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the chemical engineering field, or otherwise shows success or progress”
“without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work has garnered interest”
“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research project.”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he does not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings are being utilized in the renewable energy industry.”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “A degree in and of itself, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of her professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “she did not provide documentation from any such organization either showing their communications or identifying the specific research projects”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not presented these organizations' admission requirements or other evidence showing that either membership renders her well positioned”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • 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
1,312coded 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 expressly rejects Petitioner's comparison to the Dhanasar precedent petitioner's citation record, clarifying that Dhanasar's well-positioned finding rested on funding/role in projects rather than citations.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer