NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV242025_06B52032025-11-24 · 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 Ph.D. student in petroleum engineering, proposed to research well integrity, cap rock reliability, and reservoir property changes under CO2 injection to advance carbon storage security and climate change mitigation, while pursuing an academic career.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on his master's degree.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the letters failed to provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's research influenced the field or industry beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge”
“there was insufficient independent evidence to show that his research findings have been "frequently cited by independent researchers or that they otherwise constitute a record of success or progress”
“his master's degree in petroleum engineering, is not sufficient, even with the additional evidence to establish he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that his intended research is supported through the allocation of fonding by a U.S. based education, government or private institution”
“the Petitioner's research in the field of petroleum engineering does not demonstrate sufficient progress or success in his field, or interest in his work”
“Without sufficient probative evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well positioned”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters failed to provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's research influenced the field or industry beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “insufficient independent evidence to show that his research findings have been frequently cited by independent researchers”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “his master's degree in petroleum engineering, is not sufficient, even with the additional evidence to establish he is well-positioned”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that his intended research is supported through the allocation of fonding”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted

Where this case turned

  • 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
  • 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
249coded 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 declined to consider a new funding letter (ExxonMobil) submitted on appeal under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena because SCOPS' RFE had already put Petitioner on notice of the deficiency. AAO also excluded post-filing publication (Applied Sciences 2024) from the record under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule.

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. 103.5
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Prong two failure: no completed PhD (STEM positive factor inapplicable), no independent corroboration of research impact beyond general praise, no funding or institutional job interest shown at filing.

Transferable lesson

Before filing, secure independent evidence of impact (citations analysis, funding letters, government/industry interest, job offer) and complete claimed credentials—generic reference letters and citation counts alone won't satisfy prong two.

Endeavor framing

specific

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer