The Petitioner sought to work in the U.S. as a fatigue/damage-tolerance and aerospace research engineer, developing multiscale microstructural models to predict the mechanical behavior of aluminum foams under cyclic fatigue and impact loading to improve automotive and aerospace energy absorbers, ideally with Airbus Commercial Aircraft.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Professor H-H-T- did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's methodology or system has been utilized in vehicles or aircrafts, or that his work otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the aerospace engineering field”

“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is in a position to bring his proposed endeavor to fruition without employment at Airbus Commercial Aircraft or a comparable company”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's methodology or system has been utilized”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”

  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
• other · ignored

  “because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO found SCOPS's use of an independent Clarivate Analytics citation-rate analysis was a 'de minimus error' and expressly withdrew SCOPS's conclusions based on it, while still finding the Petitioner's own ~70 citations insufficient. AAO also found SCOPS's use of extraordinary-ability-type phrasing ('leading, critical, or indispensable role') 'inartful' but harmless since it applied the correct Dhanasar standard de novo.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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