dismissedSEP212022_01B52032022-09-21 · motion_reconsider · 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.
The Petitioner, a traffic/transportation researcher now working as a project engineer at a private engineering firm, proposed to conduct research in traffic and transportation, including microsimulation traffic modeling and analysis of traffic operations, safety, capacity, and flow, with relevance to climate-related road flooding.
Field: traffic and transportation engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not establish the prospective capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be predominantly engaged in conducting research on an ongoing basis.”
“Notably, the Petitioner has not offered detailed information explaining how the Petitioner will prospectively pursue his research projects, beyond his employment with G-.”
“he does not otherwise discuss the evidence in the record that substantiates his contention that "substantial economic benefits" will be realized through the Petitioner's specific research projects”
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors describe the Petitioner's past research work, they demonstrated little knowledge of his work since the Petitioner left academia”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the evidence submitted did not show that his recent research publications stand to have a broad impact on the field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not include adequate supporting evidence that identifies the specific research projects he intends to undertake”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he has not established that we misapplied law or USCIS policy, and that our previous decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
2,501coded 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
This is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO declines to revisit prong 2 because prong 1 alone is dispositive, and rejects the Petitioner's argument that the AAO 'conflated' his employment with his proposed endeavor, holding that current/prospective employment details are relevant to establishing the specificity required under Dhanasar's first prong.
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)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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