The petitioner, a healthcare data analyst with a Master of Public Health degree, proposed to conduct statistical and predictive healthcare research to improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and identify risk factors for chronic conditions.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her professors at [] were mainly responsible for obtaining governmental funding for her research projects.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that these findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the medical field”

“Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her articles reflects a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in her work from relevant parties”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings from these studies have affected clinical guidelines”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her professors) were mainly responsible for obtaining governmental funding”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed healthcare research”

  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
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

AAO credits prong 1 (national importance) fully, dismisses solely on prong 2, and expressly declines to reach prong 3 as unnecessary. Decision emphasizes that citation counts and grant participation alone do not establish 'record of success' absent evidence of independent impact or primary role.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Poursina v. USCIS

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