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 continue studying the nuclear structure of atomic nuclei produced through nuclear reactions, using gamma-ray spectroscopy and beta-decay techniques, measuring properties of excited states relevant to applications like diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy.
Field: experimental nuclear physics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“we note that the letters are scant and do not provide sufficient examples indicating that the Petitioner's work is impactful”
“the record does not demonstrate that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”
“it has not shown his work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“the record indicates that in this case, the grant recipient was and the Petitioner is not listed as the primary contact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters are scant and do not provide sufficient examples indicating that the Petitioner's work is impactful”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the grant recipient was [redacted] and the Petitioner is not listed as the primary contact”
AAO decision text - awards · ignored
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
AAO agreed with Director on prong 1 (national importance established via applications to diagnostic imaging/cancer treatment) but found prong 2 dispositive, declining to reach prong 3; Petitioner's database-citation-credit argument (that future researchers might use his data without formal citation) was rejected for lack of corroborating evidence.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong 2: letters were scant, citation/funding record did not show he was primary driver or had record of success, so not well-positioned to advance endeavor.
Support prong 2 with concrete evidence of leadership on funded work, citation impact, and specific progress metrics—not just co-authorship or generic praise letters.
moderate
public_health · field_advancement · national_security
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