dismissedOCT252022_01B52032022-10-25 · appeal · Nebraska 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 medical researcher, proposed to continue research on liver transplantation, including techniques for assessing and restoring livers removed from donors, in the United States.
Field: medical research (liver transplantation) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“she has not shown that she has a record of success in her field, or that she has made significant progress towards achieving her proposed endeavor”
“we need not accept these primarily conclusory assertions”
“Neither letter shows that her previous work in Brazil ... constitutes a track record of success relating to her proposed endeavor of research in liver transplantation”
“she has not shown that her work related to her proposed endeavor has drawn the interest of other researchers in her field, either through citation of her published work or implementation of her research”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“The Petitioner has not established that her education ... and her experience includes knowledge or skills that are rare or would not easily be articulated in a labor certification”
“it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's contribution to research that addresses this issue rises to the level at which it overcomes the national interest in protecting the domestic labor supply”
“we similarly conclude here that they are not sufficient to show that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“we need not accept these primarily conclusory assertions”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has been deemed by the field to be successful or has generated interest among other researchers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she possesses sufficient education and experience to carry out her duties as a medical scientist”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“that decision considered additional citations to a researcher's already published work after the date of filing, not work published after the date of filing”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
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
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of an impermissible material change based on Petitioner's new employer, and clarified that prong 1 analysis is prospective and not limited by petitioner's job at time of filing, but still dismissed on prongs 2 and 3.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(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