dismissedOCT302025_01B52032025-10-30 · 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.
Conduct research as a postdoctoral researcher on HR practices promoting inclusive leadership, Agile HR frameworks and unbiased performance evaluation, disseminated through publications and conferences.
Field: management sciences / human resource management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
PhD in management sciences accepted as advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“her project descriptions are brief summaries, without specific details or evidence supporting her claims of their impacts”
“the importance of an industry or field is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“The Petitioner does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern”
“the letters do not discuss her proposed endeavor and her plans to introduce the claimed innovative advancements”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“her colleague's letters mainly provide general summaries of her previous research projects”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“such evidence mainly relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“their overall significance does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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
Petitioner argued SCOPS abused its discretion under Buletini by mischaracterizing a research endeavor as a business; AAO found the errors harmless (citing Shinseki/Amin). SCOPS had found prong 2 met; AAO reserved prongs 2 and 3.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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