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, an assistant professor and researcher, sought to continue teaching at a U.S. university and conducting research applying machine learning techniques to finance, including return prediction, discovering new risk factors, and studying corporate innovation's effect on stock returns.
Field: finance and economics (econometrics, machine learning applications) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“Upon review of the record, we agree that the Petitioner has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner aptly points out that we previously rejected the "influence" standard, Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 887-888 and at footnote 6.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Petitioner has established he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, he would benefit the United States even if other qualified U.S. workers are available.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · credited
- awards · credited
- degree · credited
- funding · credited
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO reverses the Director on both prongs 2 and 3, explicitly rejecting the Director's use of an 'influence' standard for recommendation letters as inconsistent with Dhanasar itself, and crediting a STEM PhD tied to the endeavor as an 'especially positive factor' under USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2).
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erroneously demanded proof of 'influence beyond general knowledge' (a standard Dhanasar rejected) and applied wrong evidentiary weight; under correct preponderance standard, detailed letters, citations, awards, and a hiring interest letter satisfied prongs 2 and 3.
Challenge adjudicator use of an 'influence' or heightened-impact standard for prong 2; marshal specific third-party adoption of your methods, citations, awards, and interested-employer letters under the preponderance standard.
specific
stem_positive_factor · field_advancement
mixed
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