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 research SATB2-Associated Syndrome (SAS) by introducing SAS mutations into mouse models via CRISPR-based iGONAD technology, and to extend that work to related neurodevelopmental disorders such as Rett syndrome and Fragile X syndrome.
Field: neurodevelopment and neurological disease treatment research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS concluded the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; AAO did not disturb that finding.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Petitioner's assertions are supported by material, relevant, and probative evidence demonstrating both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research.”
“We conclude the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
“The record does not indicate how the Petitioner's participation in a peer review process for Elsevier published journals or others represented a record of success in her field.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in neurodevelopmental and neurological disease treatment research.”
“the letters do not elaborate on how the Petitioner's research observations support how well she is positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
“the compact does not demonstrate an interest in her proposed endeavor or highlight future progress in achieving its objectives such that it could establish how well-positioned the Petitioner is.”
“the Petitioner's letters do not demonstrate that her research findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“an individual's claim to some high stature in his or her field, without more, is not probative to the question of how well positioned he or she may be to advance his or her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not elaborate on how the Petitioner's research observations support how well she is positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the compact does not demonstrate an interest in her proposed endeavor or highlight future progress in achieving its objectives”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“The record does not indicate how the Petitioner's participation in a peer review process for Elsevier published journals or others represented a record of success in her field”
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
Notable
The AAO reversed SCOPS on prong 1, finding national importance established despite SCOPS having required evidence of job creation or economic effects in depressed areas — the AAO explicitly rejected that standard as inconsistent with Dhanasar. The AAO also noted in a footnote that 'mentoring and training the next generation of scientists' does not rise to national importance under Dhanasar. The petitioner cited a non-precedent AAO decision in support of prong 2; the AAO reminded that non-precedent decisions are not binding. The funding document at issue was a postdoctoral fellowship compact, not independent investment in the proposed endeavor.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner satisfied prongs 1 but failed prong 2: letters and citation metrics showed research merit/citations but not concrete progress, model/plan, or third-party interest establishing she was well positioned to advance the specific endeavor.
Prong-2 evidence must show concrete progress, a forward plan, and stakeholder interest in the specific endeavor—not just credentials, publication citations, or general research reputation.
specific
field_advancement · public_health
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