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, an industrial engineer with a doctoral degree in transportation engineering, proposes to continue research integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning into predictive maintenance and reliability engineering for industrial equipment and multi-disciplinary systems.
Field: industrial engineering / AI and machine learning for predictive maintenance and reliability engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Ph.D. in transportation engineering, satisfying the advanced degree requirement.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the letter does not discuss how the Petitioner's research has influenced the field of endeavor to demonstrate the significance of her work and show that her work constitutes a record of success.”
“beyond mentioning the number of citations to her work, the professor does not offer specific examples indicating the Petitioner's work has affected the field or otherwise represents a record of success”
“she has not shown that a notable number of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on her work, resulting in a significant impact within the field.”
“the Petitioner's advanced degree in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics field is a positive factor, it is not a sufficient basis to determine that she is well positioned”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner directed the projects. The record does not show the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her work has served as an impetus for progress in the field or it has generated substantial positive discourse in academic community.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected the field”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“Citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“Although she was not listed as a direct recipient of the funding, her work was nevertheless essential to the project execution.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record demonstrates the Petitioner has conducted and published research while pursuing her education, but she has not shown this work renders her well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“this submission was after the date of filing this petition in 2024. A petitioner must establish the elements for approval of the petition at the time of filing the original petition.”
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 conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- 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
Notable
The AAO reserved judgment on Prong 1 even though SCOPS had already found it satisfied, explicitly noting this should not be construed as agreement. The decision also rejected post-filing evidence of a sole-PI grant submission as untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1),(12). The AAO drew a detailed contrast with the Dhanasar petitioner's own funding record to explain why the Petitioner's supporting role in funded projects was insufficient.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish she is 'well positioned' under Dhanasar prong two: letters lacked specific examples of field influence, citation counts were quantitative only, and she was not shown to lead/direct funded research.
Support letters must give concrete, qualitative examples of how the petitioner's specific work altered field practice or outcomes—not just credentials, citation counts, or participation in funded projects.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness · field_advancement
person_focused
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