NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB132026_04B52032026-02-13 · appeal

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 postdoctoral researcher, proposed to continue biomedical research focused on engineering more potent CAR T cell therapies for cancer, including epigenetic reprogramming and drug-regulatable platforms to optimize CAR safety and efficacy.

Field: biomedical and biological sciences, cancer biology, CAR T cell immunotherapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS determined the petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“Upon review and considering the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has sufficiently shown the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated through sufficient documentation in the record that her research has influenced the field of endeavor”
“the letters lack specificity to support their assertions and do not elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's research has been utilized in the field”
“she has not described how she specifically intends to continue her proposed work in the United States, particularly after her time limited fellowship ends”
“the record does not reflect that the Petitioner was named as a grant recipient or otherwise show that the Petitioner...has received any funding for her research proposals”
“although the Petitioner's advanced degrees in a STEM field are positive factors, they are not a sufficient basis in themselves to determine that she is well positioned”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • citations publications · discounted
    “a high citation number might show that others in the field have noticed the Petitioner's work, but it does not confirm that her work has impacted or advanced the field of endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters lack specificity to support their assertions and do not elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's research has been utilized in the field”
    AAO decision text
  • patents · discounted
    “the record again does not reflect how her research has influenced the field or represents a level of interest in her work from relevant parties”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not reflect that the Petitioner was named as a grant recipient or otherwise show that the Petitioner...has received any funding for her research proposals”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
All 9 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    “she has not described how she specifically intends to continue her proposed work in the United States, particularly after her time limited fellowship ends”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not adequately establish the significance of her review experience or demonstrate that her occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the record again does not reflect how her research has influenced the field or represents a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner resubmits previously provided documents and argues that SCOPS did not adequately consider the evidence”
    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
249coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO affirmatively found prong 1 met despite SCOPS having made no prong 1 determination, then dismissed on prong 2 alone. The decision includes a detailed footnote rejecting patent evidence because neither patent was approved — one was a Chinese patent on which petitioner was a co-inventor and one was a U.S. patent application on which petitioner was not listed as an inventor at all. The AAO also declined to consider citation counts updated through the appeal date, citing the filing-date eligibility rule under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1),(12) and Matter of Katigbak.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed prong 2: no credible plan/funding/employer commitment to continue endeavor in U.S., and citations/letters showed notice but not demonstrated field influence.

Transferable lesson

Support letters and citation metrics must specifically explain qualitative influence on the field and provide concrete future plans/funding, not just credentials or generic praise.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

stem_positive_factor · public_health · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer