The petitioner, an industrial chemist, proposed to generate scientific advances with direct applications for research throughout U.S. chemical industries, based on his postdoctoral research.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“did not further elaborate and offer examples of how this scheme and other findings have been implemented or applauded in the chemical industry.”

“did not provide specific, actual examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has been utilized in any of these industries or otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations received by his articles or the level of interest they generated is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor.”

“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published work has served as an impetus for progress in the industrial chemical field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “did not further elaborate and offer examples of how this scheme and other findings have been implemented”

  AAO decision text
• patents · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not demonstrated the significance of his innovation in the field.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations received by his articles or the level of interest they generated is sufficient”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”

  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 conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO refused to consider evidence (article reference pages, ScienceDaily articles) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Obaigbena; petitioner argued he had a stronger citation record than the petitioner in the Dhanasar precedent itself, which the AAO rejected by clarifying that Dhanasar's second-prong finding was not based on citation record.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 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