dismissedSEP122023_05B52032023-09-12 · motion_reconsider · 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 Ph.D. student, proposed to continue research on MEMS switches, including the design, assembly, and testing of MEMS switch reliability and performance fixtures.
Field: MEMS (micro-electromechanical systems) switch research / electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The MU letter does not appear to be a formal job offer, but rather a particular professor's stated desire to hire the Petitioner.”
“The letter from Mr. A-A- does not include details about who determined the Petitioner's research accomplishments were extraordinary, how they evaluated the research accomplishments, or the specific aspects of the Petitioner's research they found to be extraordinary.”
“Dr. R-L-J- does not describe the rigorous selection method or how the committee evaluated the Petitioner.”
“we find no error in our prior conclusion that the number of citations the Petitioner received does not reflect a level of interest in his work”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated his capabilities in conducting research apart from the mentorship and leadership of more senior faculty members.”
“the letter does not describe what the Petitioner did to deserve such credit, nor does Dr. R-A-C- provide corroborative details, such as the amount or terms of the funding.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not include details about who determined the Petitioner's research accomplishments were extraordinary”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it does not carry significant evidentiary value, as it is informal, and the job offer is contingent.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“these limited articles do not represent a level of his success in the field.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the letter does not describe what the Petitioner did to deserve such credit, nor does Dr. R-A-C- provide corroborative details”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it is not particularly probative of a record of success or progress in advancing his research beyond this context.”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- certification membership · discounted
“the manual does not offer sufficient details about its reviewer selection process to conclude that being selected as an IEEE reviewer well positions the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,312coded 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 expressly agrees that EB-1 'extraordinary ability' standards should not be applied to the NIW prong-two analysis. The decision focuses narrowly on prong two, reaffirming the prior appellate dismissal on motion to reconsider, and offers detailed reasoning on why peer-review selection, citation patterns, and a contingent post-doc offer letter do not establish being 'well positioned.'
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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