dismissedNOV242025_08B52032025-11-24 · 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 PhD candidate and research assistant in computer science, proposed to conduct research applying theoretical and experimental analysis to improve performance of future network systems, including quantum networks and AI/5G-6G distributed training systems.
Field: computer science / networking / artificial intelligence · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“We withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.”
“he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry.”
“Dr. Y-W- ... did not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected his field, or otherwise shows success or progress”
“The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his graduate work constitutes a record of success or progress in AI research”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects.”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States after graduation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not elaborate on the extent to which the Petitioner's specific findings have been utilized in the industry”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner does not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by him or his coauthors.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not provide documentation from any such employer either showing their communications or identifying the specific research projects”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than one of his professors) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“he has not demonstrated ... that his participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field”
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
1,358coded 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 withdrew SCOPS' prong-1 denial but affirmed on prong 2, treating citation evidence extensively (self-citations, post-filing citation updates excluded under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12), and a Scientometrics bibliometrics article deemed not accepted by the academic community). The Petitioner's argument that his citation record exceeded that of Dr. Dhanasar himself was rejected because the precedent decision's well-positioned finding rested on funding and role significance, not 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
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