This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor (Dhanasar prong two), making the appeal dispositive on that ground without reaching prong three.
The petitioner, a graduate research assistant and doctoral candidate in electrical and computer engineering, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to continue research on power systems resilience and security. The AAO reversed the Director's finding on national importance (prong one), accepting that the research had broader implications for U.S. power infrastructure. However, the AAO affirmed the denial on prong two, finding the petitioner's citation record, pending (unapproved) patent, limited personal grant funding, occasional peer review activity, and uncertain future employment plans insufficient to establish he was well positioned to advance his specific proposed endeavor. Because prong two was dispositive, the AAO did not address prong three.
What worked: Letters from academic experts established that the petitioner's power systems research had national importance and broader implications for U.S. infrastructure, successfully reversing the Director's prong-one finding.
What failed: The petitioner could not demonstrate he was personally well positioned to advance the research: citation data was methodologically flawed for his subfield, grant funding was attributable to his university or advisor rather than himself, the patent was only filed (not approved), peer review participation was occasional and routine, and future employment plans were too vague to confirm continuation of the specific proposed endeavor.
Takeaway: NIW petitioners in STEM must show personal ownership of research funding, a clearly defined and committed future research plan, and qualitative evidence that their work has already influenced the field — broad citation statistics and assistance on a supervisor's grants are not sufficient substitutes.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- Letters from academic experts established that the petitioner's power systems research had national importance and broader implications for U.S
- infrastructure, successfully reversing the Director's prong-one finding.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not demonstrate he was personally well positioned to advance the research: citation data was methodologically flawed for his subfield, grant funding was attributable to his university or advisor rather than himself, the patent was only filed (not approved), peer review participation was occasional and routine, and future employment plans were too vague to confirm continuation of the specific proposed endeavor.
Letters of support from professors discussing petitioner's research and its relation to U.S. strategic interests
Plans to disseminate research results through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations supporting national importance
Master's degree in electrical engineering and doctoral candidacy in electrical and computer engineering
Three peer-reviewed journal articles and 11 conference publications (acknowledged but insufficient alone)
Citation record of 92 citations including top-20% percentile claims: Clarivate Analytics data compared electrical engineering to the broader engineering field without sufficient evidence the data applies equally to each subfield; also citation frequency is quantitative and does not reveal qualitative reasons for citations
Funding support: petitioner assisted advisor's research group in seeking funding but did not show he personally received grant funding as opposed to the university or advisor
Patent application: only a cover letter with a purported patent number and abstract were provided; no evidence the patent was approved or documentation of its significance
Peer review activity: occasional participation in peer review not established as significant or indicative of a record of success
Future employment plans: vague multiple options (advisor position, other academic institutions, private employers) without documentation confirming continuation of the specific proposed endeavor
Director erred by finding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance solely because it did not show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects in an economically depressed area; the AAO reversed this and found national importance established.
Director did not need to conduct a separate discretionary analysis because the petitioner failed threshold eligibility requirements under Dhanasar — the AAO agreed no separate discretionary analysis was required.
Completed
I-140 filed
Graduate research assistant and doctoral candidate in electrical and computer engineering researching power systems resilience and security
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-10-08
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor (Dhanasar prong two), making the appeal dispositive on that ground without reaching prong three.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee