dismissedOCT162020_07B52032020-10-16 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 wind erosion researcher with a PhD in Biological and Agricultural Engineering, proposed to continue research using CFD simulation, remote sensing, and tracer studies to analyze wind erosion and air quality, including development of a mobile application for monitoring these phenomena.
Field: wind erosion / agricultural engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“did not provide specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected wind erosion minimization practices or otherwise constitutes a record of success in his field.”
“This self-compiled information lacks probative value and does not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has received funding for his research proposals or future projects.”
“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not explain how the Petitioner's work has been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“This self-compiled information lacks probative value and does not demonstrate citations to his work by others in the field.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has received funding for his research proposals or future projects.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The record, however, does not include evidence demonstrating the significance or level of distinction of these memberships in his field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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
The AAO expressly credited the Petitioner with meeting prong one (national importance of wind erosion research) but dismissed on prong two alone, declining to reach prong three, and noted each stated reason as an independent and alternate 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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
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