Citation record not persuasive

What this objection usually means

Raw citation numbers mean little alone. Officers ask whether the citations show the field relying on the work, compared with others in the same field.

What has tended to answer it

Put citations in context (field benchmarks, percentiles), and show excerpts of citing papers that build on the work.

General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.

The rule

“Documentation demonstrating a strong citation history of the person’s work or excerpts of published articles showing positive discourse around, or adoption of, the person’s work;”

USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. F, Ch. 5(D)(3) (second prong)

Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.

Where it sank the appeal

Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection

• Dismissed2026-08-21Clinical & health

  Overall, because the evidence in the record shows that 1) the Petitioner primarily has been cited for reviewing the work of others, 2) it does not demonstrate that she has been highly cited for her own primary research, 3) the record does not sufficiently detail the Petitioner's contributions to the review articles, and 4) the articles include topics that appear unrelated to her proposed endeavor, we conclude that the evidence in the record regarding the Petitioner's publication history and citation record does not credibly demonstrate a record of success in related or similar efforts to the p…

  Read decision AUG212026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-31Education

  The Petitioner further argues that users did not properly analyze her published and presented work, citation evidence, letters of support, education, and peer review service.

  Read decision JUL312026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-30Engineering

  The Petitioner's publication and citation record do not demonstrate that his work has had an "impressive influence" on the field as claimed.

  Read decision JUL302026_01B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-28Engineering

  While the Petitioner asserts that USCIS erroneously dismissed his colleagues' recommendation letters and his previous research citation history as corroborating his claims, the letters do not discuss his proposed endeavor and his plans to introduce the claimed innovative advancements which may be disseminated to or adopted by others operating in his field or any other industry.

  Read decision JUL282026_05B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-28Education

  Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit evidence that his citation record is comparatively high in his field or that his work and proposed endeavor have otherwise garnered the interest of other researchers in his field.

  Read decision JUL282026_02B5203
• Dismissed2026-07-20Engineering

  These papers, however, are not accompanied by evidence explaining the significance of the citations, and beyond being cited by other researchers to support their own work, the record does not otherwise contain evidence of the utilization of the Petitioner's research within the field of her specific endeavor, i.e., implementing GNNs to detect environmentally harmful activities.

  Read decision JUL202026_03B5203

Where the petitioner still won or got a remand

Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it

• Remanded2026-07-28Physical sciences & math

  While he concludes that these citations show that "the field has come to depend on [the Petitioner's] efforts in the field to a substantial degree" and that "her work is widely regarded as majorly significant to the inorganic chemistry community," we note that the evidence in the record does not support these statements in terms of the quantity or quality of the citations to the Petitioner's published research.

  Read decision JUL282026_06B5203
• Remanded2026-07-16Engineering

  While the Petitioner asserts that his citation record, nevertheless, places one of his articles in the top 10 percent of the most cited papers for engineering in the year 2024, the record lacks sufficient context and evidence to demonstrate his papers have, for instance, widely influenced the field or otherwise established a clear record of success.

  Read decision JUL162026_01B5203
• Remanded2026-01-28Computing, AI & data

  SCOPS acknowledged the importance of the field of computer science but indicated that his publication and citation record did not demonstrate "how past research success suggests that the future endeavor will have a similar impact."

  Read decision JAN282026_07B5203
• Remanded2026-01-08Computing, AI & data

  Continuing in this vein, they noted that she had not established that her published research had been frequently cited by independent researchers, that it had "served as an impetus for progress in the field of computer science," or that it "otherwise constitute[ s] a record of success or progress in advancing research relating to artificial intelligence."

  Read decision JAN082026_01B5203
• Remanded2025-12-18Biomedical & life sciences

  They also stated that, while the Petitioner submitted evidence of his publication and citation record to establish how his past research success suggested his future endeavor would have a similar impact, this evidence did not in itself establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.

  Read decision DEC182025_05B5203
• Remanded2025-12-17Biomedical & life sciences

  Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his citation record.

  Read decision DEC172025_02B5203