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 research on refining and developing advanced silicon carbide process integration techniques to improve the performance and reliability of semiconductor devices, with applications in telecommunications, advanced computing, and photonic-enabled computing systems. She argued this work addresses U.S. national priorities in advanced telecommunications, quantum infrastructure, and critical and emerging technologies.
Field: electrical and computer engineering (silicon carbide semiconductor process integration) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS determined and AAO agreed that the Petitioner established an advanced degree (M.S. in electrical and computer engineering) qualifying her for the underlying EB-2 classification.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding her proposed research to demonstrate its prospective national importance.”
“she did not explain, for example, how she will perform this research, which is particularly critical in light of her full-time employment”
“the submitted articles about, for instance, silicon carbide semiconductors relate to the importance of the field and do not support that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish national importance.”
“having a STEM endeavor does not demonstrate national importance in and of itself.”
“the letter makes no reference to any interest by the government or any other entities in the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“she did not discuss the significance of the number of studies she published or provide context for how being cited 204 times equates to a record of success”
“the articles do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work is being used by others in the field to establish a record of success or progress towards achieving her proposed endeavor.”
“the author does not provide sufficient detail of how the Petitioner's contributions have been significant, impacted the field, and created discourse among others in the field.”
“The Petitioner does not provide a plan as to how she intends to continue her research, as described in her proposed endeavor.”
“She did not include evidence of prospective or potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities reflecting feasible plans for financial support.”
“a degree is one factor we consider in determining whether a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the submitted articles about, for instance, silicon carbide semiconductors relate to the importance of the field and do not support that her specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letter, without details and corroboration, is not sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“citation frequency, which may include self-citations, is quantitative in nature and does not reveal the reasons for the citations, which involve a qualitative analysis.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- funding · discounted
“the author also said that her name may not appear in formal funding documentation. The Petitioner did not provide evidence of future funding by the NSF.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“her December 2024 personal statement, she provided a description of her job duties, which did not include research.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Notable
The AAO reversed SCOPS on prong 2, finding the Petitioner did NOT meet prong 2 despite SCOPS having found she did (without analysis). The AAO thus dismissed on both prongs 1 and 2, reserving prong 3. Notably, the Petitioner was a doctoral candidate through December 2024 and had recently transitioned to industry employment as a process engineer; the AAO questioned whether her employer's proprietary technology constraints would prevent public dissemination of research. The Petitioner invoked Buletini v. INS to argue abuse of discretion, which the AAO rejected, clarifying it is not bound by district court decisions. The Petitioner also argued her STEM/CET work alone establishes national importance, which the AAO explicitly rejected.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Lack of specificity: no detail on how she would conduct the research outside her private employer, no government/institutional interest tied to her specific work, and no independent corroboration of impact beyond counsel's assertions.
Detail concretely how the endeavor will be pursued (mechanism, institution, funding) and obtain corroborated, specific expert evidence tying the individual's actual work—not just the field—to broad prospective impact.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · stem_positive_factor · national_security · 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