The petitioner sought to continue research on sustainable urban planning, public health, climate change, environmental justice, and waste management as a researcher in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Without more, the letters from | andl | are not probative evidence that the Petitioner's research has been implemented in sustainable urban planning, public health, climate change, EJ, and waste management or otherwise constitute a record of success in the field.”

“he did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research has influenced the urban planning industry, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field”

“the Petitioner has not submitted any documentation, such as records of citations to her work, that would demonstrate the significance or level of distinction for her research articles.”

“the Petitioner has not shown that this offer of employment shows a record of success or represents progress rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor prior to or at the time of initial filing.”

“As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's research has influenced the urban planning industry”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “has not submitted any documentation, such as records of citations to her work, that would demonstrate the significance or level of distinction”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “she does not offer evidence that this offer of employment shows a record of success or represents progress”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not otherwise identify the organizations or businesses to which they are affiliated”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

AAO treats emails from personal accounts (not formal recommendation letters) as insufficiently probative because affiliations were unverifiable; also discounts a post-filing job offer under the 'at time of filing' evidentiary rule (8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)). Revocation of a previously approved petition is at issue, though procedurally treated as a standard appeal of a denial.

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
• Section 291 of the Act

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