dismissedAUG152025_01B52032025-08-15 · motion_reconsider
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.
The petitioner, a doctoral student in microbiology and bioinformatics, proposed to conduct research on the genetic determinants of foodborne pathogens and antimicrobial resistance in order to identify novel drug targets.
Field: microbiology and bioinformatics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“we cannot conclude that the quality and quantity of the submitted evidence of the Petitioner's published work shows that he has a record of success”
“this data shows that citation count alone does not meaningfully separate the relative success or impact of this paper”
“Without sufficient evidence of funding or other means to support his planned research after receiving his Ph.D., the Petitioner has not established that his plan renders him well positioned”
“'education, skills, and knowledge' is only a portion of one of the nonexclusive factors listed in Dhanasar for consideration under the second prong”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“such a shortage does not, by itself, satisfy the third prong”
“the Petitioner has not shown that granting his waiver would appreciably alleviate any such shortage in biotechnology workers”
“the Petitioner has not established that his skills, training, and experience... are of such value that, on balance, they outweigh the national interest in protecting the national workforce”
“Unlike the petitioner in Dhanasar, here the Petitioner has not demonstrated a record of successful research, or that he has served in a leading role in research repeatedly funded by U.S. government agencies”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“this data shows that citation count alone does not meaningfully separate the relative success or impact of this paper”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not demonstrate a record of success when considered within the broader field of microbiology”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“we do not consider new facts in a motion to reconsider”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“we will not consider the new facts and evidence submitted with his NOID response”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Without sufficient evidence of funding or other means to support his planned research after receiving his Ph.D.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · discounted
“'education, skills, and knowledge' is only a portion of one of the nonexclusive factors listed in Dhanasar”
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
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- 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
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p3 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
- U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established
249coded 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
The AAO withdrew its prior favorable finding on prong 2 via a NOID issued in connection with the motion, then dismissed based on failures of both prongs 2 and 3. It engaged in unusually granular statistical analysis of citation percentiles using a Clarivate Analytics report to show the petitioner's most-cited paper was not exceptional relative to field norms.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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