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 physical therapy researcher and assistant professor, proposed to develop and utilize reliable assessment tools (including point-of-care ultrasound imaging, photogrammetric approaches, and movement system impairment-based classification) for musculoskeletal disorders of the lower extremities, and to research related topics including brain stimulation for myofascial pain syndrome.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The authors may reference the petitioner's research as background material for their own findings, but they do not distinguish or highlight the petitioner's work or publications from the other cited papers.”
“Citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to a finding that a petitioner is well positioned.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that her work has attracted a degree of attention, and resulted in active demand for her future services, that would warrant a special exemption from the job offer requirement”
“USCIS concluded that the Petitioner had not established a sufficient "level of interest in the petitioner's proposed research work."”
“The charts are unattributed and identify no sources, and therefore amount to unsupported assertions that lack evidentiary weight.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“The authors may reference the petitioner's research as background material for their own findings, but they do not distinguish or highlight the petitioner's work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The charts are unattributed and identify no sources, and therefore amount to unsupported assertions that lack evidentiary weight.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO highlighted an internal inconsistency in the Petitioner's citation statistics (claiming both a 96th percentile ranking and a top-10% single-article ranking) and treated unattributed citation-percentile charts as unsupported assertions lacking evidentiary weight. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's argument that requiring evidence of employer interest amounted to a de facto job offer requirement.
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
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
National importance was conceded, but her citation record (some charts unattributed and inconsistent) showed background references, not influence, and no U.S. employer or institution showed interest; she failed well-positioned.
For well-positioned, citations must show your work is distinguished and relied upon, not cited as background; evidence an institution wants to hire you carries weight a stated preference does not.
specific
public_health · 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