dismissedOCT022025_05B52032025-10-02 · 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 in Computer Science, proposed to develop secure communication frameworks and authentication methods to protect automotive control systems (CAN/TSN protocols and ECUs) from cyberattacks.
Field: automotive cybersecurity / computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“she has not demonstrated the extent to which her specific findings are being utilized in the automotive industry”
“Dr. G-B-, however, does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the automotive industry”
“Without statistical evidence or other objective metrics comparing the number of citations received by the Petitioner's articles with others in her field, she has not demonstrated her work has garnered interest at a level consistent with being well positioned”
“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 her professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for their research projects”
“Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake her proposed research in the United States after graduation from her current Ph.D. program, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“We are not persuaded by the argument that a national interest waiver is warranted due to the shortage of workers in the Petitioner's field”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that her automotive cybersecurity contributions supersede the benefits of protecting the domestic labor supply inherent in the labor certification process”
“The Petitioner has not shown that she offers contributions of such value that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the automotive 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 - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her professor) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Nor has she demonstrated that her association memberships, professional certificates, student awards, and programing projects render her well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her plan for future activities renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p3 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
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 withdrew SCOPS's denial on prong 1 (finding national importance established) but dismissed the appeal on independent alternate grounds under prongs 2 and 3, explicitly stating each was an independent basis for dismissal.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
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