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 doctoral student in structural engineering, proposed to develop eco-friendly, cost-efficient, and durable cementitious materials and construction methodologies to improve U.S. civil infrastructure, intending to pursue this research as a university professor after completing his PhD.
Field: structural/civil engineering (cementitious materials, concrete infrastructure) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO affirmed Petitioner met EB-2 advanced degree professional classification based on a foreign diploma and credential evaluation equivalent to a U.S. master's degree, while withdrawing SCOPS' confusing and irrelevant statements about post-priority-date evidence and an unsupported claim that he had not earned an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not contain evidence, other than the Petitioner's own statement, related to obtaining this position, such as a job offer letter or other information about the position.”
“the fact that the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of pursuing this employment or any specific steps taken toward achieving employment is a negative factor in this instance.”
“the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards; for example, the record does not show whether the Petitioner applied for and received this funding for his research.”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · credited
- degree · credited
- funding · discounted
“the record does not establish the parameters of these grant awards”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence, other than the Petitioner's own statement, related to obtaining this position”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO expressly criticized SCOPS' decision for multiple factual and legal errors (misstated publication counts, misconstrued citation percentile, irrelevant 'final merits determination' and exceptional-ability case citations, confusing degree-eligibility statements) and withdrew those specific findings, yet still dismissed the appeal on de novo review, finding prong 2 unmet and dispositive while expressly reserving judgment on prong 3 under Bagamasbad.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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