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 materials engineer, proposed to develop innovative mitigation strategies and technologies to minimize or control scale formation and optimize steel production for sustainable, high-quality steel.
Field: materials science / metallurgy (steel production) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional based on his Master of Science degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner has a record of success in efforts related or similar to his proposed endeavor”
“None of his publications or citations addressed scale formation in steel production or otherwise referenced steel production.”
“The record also does not indicate that the Petitioner has made any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not established the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in his proposed endeavor”
“M-J-H- praises the Petitioner's work on BaTiQ3 ceramics and multiferroic materials, but does not discuss any research the Petitioner has conducted on steel production.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the record does not indicate the Petitioner's publications and citations have been in efforts related or similar to his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not discuss any research the Petitioner has conducted on his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- 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 expressly withdrew the Director's use of an 'influence'/'influential' standard as potentially inconsistent with Dhanasar, but still dismissed the appeal on prong 2 grounds; prong 1 was conceded as met by the Director and not revisited.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Prong 1 was met, but every publication, citation, and letter concerned ceramics, nanomaterials, and titanium alloys rather than steel production; with no related record of success or progress, prong 2 failed.
Your record must match your endeavor: publications and citations in adjacent materials-science topics do not show success in the specific endeavor you propose, however strong they are on their own.
specific
field_advancement · us_competitiveness
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod