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 use genetic engineering tools, including lipid nanoparticles to deliver transcription factor encoding mRNA, to enhance the regenerative capabilities of cardiac progenitor cells to improve treatment of cardiovascular disease, pursued through employment as a scientist at a private Texas company while continuing to publish research.
Field: biotechnology / genetic engineering, cardiac stem cell research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master's degree in biotechnology and bioinformatics.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the impact that [the Petitioner] will have as a researcher does not have substantial merit as it will only have one company benefiting from the [P]etitioner's endeavor”
“simply being hired by a private company in the United States does not rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence about a shortage of researchers in the Petitioner's field and did not rely on a finding of such a shortage”
“the Director's decision can be read to conclude that an endeavor that is pursued through employment at a private company categorically cannot be nationally important”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Petitioner did not establish this prong because she did not demonstrate the impact of her work on the overall field beyond her specific employers”
“a national interest waiver is not meant to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job search”
“we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor to conclude that it is not well-positioned based on her endeavor and previous achievements”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not specifically discuss and analyze the evidence in the record as it relates to these factors”
“the Director did not discuss the enumerated factors of the third prong at all”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“much of the Petitioner's prior publications and citation history relate to her research into stem cell therapy for the treatment of HIV”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
- other · discounted
“articles and reports evidence the shortage of specialized researchers... insufficient to demonstrate the endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p2 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
AAO found the Director's decision internally inconsistent and legally erroneous across all three prongs (conflating substantial merit with national importance, mischaracterizing the record regarding a labor-shortage argument never made, applying an overly restrictive categorical rule against private-sector employment, and failing entirely to analyze prong 3 factors), and remanded for a proper Dhanasar analysis rather than deciding eligibility itself.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision conflated the three Dhanasar prongs, applied legally erroneous per se rules (private employment cannot be nationally important; job offer negates prong 2), and failed to analyze prong 3 factors at all, precluding meaningful review.
Clearly separate prong 1 (endeavor's merit/importance), prong 2 (petitioner's positioning), and prong 3 (balance of benefit); adjudicators must apply enumerated Dhanasar factors distinctly and explain reasoning for each.
specific
public_health · 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