The petitioner, a teacher and ASD education researcher, proposed to develop and expand novel instructional and assessment methods to improve the verbal, cognitive, and behavioral skills of students with autism spectrum disorder.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that her research has been frequently cited by independent educational scholars or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field”

“Nor does the record indicate that her findings have been implemented as part of ASD education initiatives, or that her work has affected special education practices.”

“she has not shown that advising regarding its training program and receiving requests to perform peer review and to publish and present her work make her well positioned to advance her proposed research.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“the Petitioner contends that we erred in finding that she had not shown an urgent national interest in her research, or demonstrated that she offers contributions of such value that, over all, they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available.”

“She does not, however, provide evidence. or information to support her claim that our previous determination was erroneous, nor did she identify new facts establishing her eligibility under this prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted
• citations publications · discounted

  “they were all published or presented after the filing date of the Form I-140”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the remainder of the brief includes assertions as to how the previously submitted evidence establishes her eligibility”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• 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

Notable

This is the third AAO decision in the same case: the AAO previously dismissed the appeal and a subsequent motion to reconsider, applying the newly issued Dhanasar framework (retroactively substituted for the vacated NYSDOT test via an RFE) before this final combined motion to reopen/reconsider was denied for lack of new facts or legal error.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• INA 203(b)(2)

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