dismissedOCT232017_02B52032017-10-23 · 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.
A neonatology fellow/assistant professor proposed to conduct clinical research on neonatal care (e.g., low birth weight infant nutrition, antibiotic stewardship, cerebral circulation) while also providing patient care and teaching duties.
Field: neonatology (academic medicine/research) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the record does not establish that his clinical and instructional work would impact the neonatology field and healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves and his students”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown that his research has been frequently cited by independent neonatologists or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field”
“the record does not document that his findings have been utilized beyond his coworkers”
“The record does not show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings have generated positive interest among relevant parties”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“has not shown that his research has been frequently cited by independent neonatologists or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“has not documented the reputation of the aforementioned journals or offered other evidence demonstrating that his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned”
AAO decision text - funding · ignored
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
1,788coded 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 credited national importance for the research endeavor (prong 1 partially met) but found clinical/teaching duties not nationally important, then denied on prong 2 alone, declining to reach prong 3; also rejected a labor-shortage argument via footnote noting DOL addresses shortages through labor certification.
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his