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. candidate/postdoctoral researcher in systems engineering, proposed to conduct research automating legal information-gathering and knowledge acquisition and to develop mathematical models and policy tools for managing systemic risk in the U.S. financial system.
Field: systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“he has not established that his education is at the same level as the petitioner in Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published book chapters reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”
“he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research have been implemented or utilized in the fields of finance or law”
“the Petitioner has not established that his fonding reflects the same parameters sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”
“he has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the systems engineering field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research and other findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded in the field of law”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published book chapters reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the reports do not indicate that the Petitioner was primarily responsible for securing the fonding for the research projects or that he was the only researcher listed”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he has not established that his education is at the same level as the petitioner in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not demonstrated how his research has been implemented commercially or otherwise impacted industries”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- 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
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's adverse finding on prong 1, finding national importance established, but dismissed the appeal solely on prong 2 (well positioned), reserving prong 3 entirely. The decision heavily scrutinizes citation counts, funding attribution (co-researcher vs. principal investigator), and comparison to the Dhanasar petitioner's specific credentials.
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.
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong 2: record showed original research and funding but not that he was primary driver, nor that work generated industry impact, high citations, or independent implementation beyond limited academic use.
Even after winning national importance, petitioners must show concrete progress, primary role in funded projects, and independent verifiable impact—not just credentials and generic expert praise.
moderate
field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · government_interest
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