NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT162025_03B52032025-10-16 · 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 proposed to design and optimize novel asphalt materials incorporating recycled asphalt concrete, plastics, and nanomaterials to improve pavement formulations and advance the nation's infrastructure.

Field: civil and environmental engineering (asphalt/pavement materials) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We concur with SCOPS that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not otherwise show the Petitioner has made any meaningful progress toward achieving his specific proposed endeavor”
“academic accomplishments by themselves are not necessarily sufficient to establish that a petitioner is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor”
“neither letter writer indicates whether or how they have personal knowledge of the Petitioner's skills or work, outside of his stated citation history”
“citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”
“we cannot conclude that these funding sources were granted for the Petitioner to continue his research, as related to his proposed endeavor”
“Overall, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown a track record of past success or progress related to the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record below does not contain evidence related to these claimed positions”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “neither letter writer indicates whether or how they have personal knowledge of the Petitioner's skills or work”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not contain any additional detail as to the purpose... or how the funds were allocated”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “academic accomplishments by themselves are not necessarily sufficient to establish that a petitioner is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • certification membership · discounted
    “this certification only verifies the Petitioner's completion of two peer reviews and does not contain any other related information”
    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
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • 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
271coded 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

Petitioner's shifting career narrative undermined the claim: he previously indicated plans to pursue a PhD and postdoctoral research aligned with the endeavor, but on appeal asserted he had no doctoral degree and did not explain his changed trajectory or how his current pavement engineer role advances the specific proposed endeavor. AAO also questioned self-citation rates and noted a scholarship award was intended to help him finish graduate work, not to continue the proposed research.

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. 103.5
  • Buletini v. INS
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles