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 agronomy researcher, proposed to continue research on crop production techniques (e.g., container-grown vegetable cultivation, hydroponics, vertical farming, and nanoparticle-enhanced nutrition) aimed at addressing food scarcity, climate resilience, and sustainable agriculture in the U.S.
Field: agronomy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO affirmed that Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's decision did not engage with the Petitioner's assertions or evidence, and instead determined in a conclusory manner that while the Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, it was not of national importance.”
“However, no further analysis was provided to support the Director's prong one conclusions.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“However, the Director's decision does not reflect that they considered current USCIS policy concerning individuals who hold an advanced degree in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) tied to the proposed endeavor”
“the Director's decision does not reflect that they considered the Petitioner's affiliation with I I as well as the grant I I received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director should analyze the evidence considering our STEM policy.”
“Current USCIS policy states that in evaluating the third prong we should consider the following combination of facts to be a strong positive factor in favor of granting the third prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · ignored
“The Director's decision did not engage with the Petitioner's assertions or evidence”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the [internet printouts] do not demonstrate how the [P]etitioner's research has national or global implications in the field of agriculture”
AAO decision text - funding · ignored
“the Director's decision does not reflect that they considered ... the grant [Petitioner] received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture”
AAO decision text - citations publications · ignored
“the Director should consider if the Petitioner's research citation history ... is sufficient to meet prong two”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Unusual case combining an NIW Dhanasar analysis with a section 204(c) marriage fraud bar issue arising from a prior denied I-130. AAO remanded on both grounds: it found the Director applied an incorrect 'reasonable inference' standard instead of the 'substantial and probative evidence'/'more than probably' fraudulent standard from Matter of P. Singh, and found the Director's Dhanasar analysis conclusory and failing to apply USCIS STEM policy (Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)) regarding advanced STEM degree holders as a strong positive factor for prongs two and three. No prong was found to fail on the merits; all three were sent back for proper analysis.
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)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director applied wrong marriage-fraud evidentiary standard (reasonable inference vs. substantial/probative) and gave conclusory, unanalyzed NIW denial ignoring STEM policy and evidence; remanded for correct standards.
Petitioners should marshal specific STEM-policy citations and concrete impact evidence early, since adjudicators applying wrong legal standards or conclusory reasoning can be remanded on appeal.
moderate
public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness
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