The Petitioner, an aerospace engineer, proposed to work on space rendezvous and related spacecraft docking research, building on graduate research into risk metrics and technical algorithms for spacecraft operations.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not show, for example, that the testing has affected the aerospace or field or otherwise represents a record of success or progress”

“the Petitioner did not establish that the extent of his role and overall contributions to sufficiently demonstrates that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for research projects”

“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 did not show the significance of his published works or that they garnered a level of interest sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his role... reflects that he is well positioned in the field”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “he did not further elaborate and explain how the field has been affected by the paper”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not show that the Petitioner... was mainly responsible for obtaining funding”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

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

  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
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• 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 explicitly distinguishes the case from Dhanasar itself, noting the petitioner's citation record and funding role were much weaker than the named precedent petitioner's; also rejects the argument that citation counts should not apply because the field is 'pioneering and new.'

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