dismissedJUL072026_02B52032026-07-07 · 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 bioengineer, proposed to continue developing and optimizing microfluidic platforms integrating mechanical engineering with molecular biology, aiming to advance precision medicine, drug discovery, and cellular therapies through his current employer or an equivalent position.
Field: bioengineering / microfluidics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
USCIS and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his U.S. master's degree in bioengineering.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, he has established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“USCIS considers a Ph.D. degree, an especially positive factor to be considered along with other evidence.”
“Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that his research findings constitute a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
“beyond these generalized assertions, none of the authors further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has influenced the field or industry”
“The Petitioner did not provide context for his citation rate to demonstrate it amounts to a strong citation history or that it has generated interest among others in the field.”
“While a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor is well positioned to advance their endeavor.”
“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 his research proposals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“he does not have a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors further elaborate on or sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has influenced the field or industry”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not by itself demonstrate that the inventor is well positioned to advance their endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide context for his citation rate to demonstrate it amounts to a strong citation history”
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”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“he's a relatively young professional with limited experience in the microfluidic 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
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
AAO withdrew USCIS's denial on prong 1 (finding national importance established) but affirmed denial on prong 2, reaching the opposite prong from USCIS's original basis for denial; extensive comparison to the facts of Matter of Dhanasar itself as a benchmark the Petitioner failed to meet.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
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