The Petitioner proposed to continue public health research using mixed-methods approaches, focusing on health promotion and disease prevention for people with disabilities, accessibility research, and related topics such as vesicovaginal fistula.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he does not offer specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field of public health or otherwise represents a record of success or progress”

“The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her published articles reflects a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar 's second prong.”

“she has not shown that her academic accomplishments and citation record by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the public health field”

“the Petitioner has not presented copies ofresearch grants showing the funding she obtained for her specific projects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not offer specific examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field of public health or otherwise represents a record of success or progress”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by her published articles reflects a level of interest in her work from relevant parties”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• resume experience · discounted

  “she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The record, however, does not indicate how these two scores were calculated or that they represent an objective measure of research impact.”

  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 rejects Petitioner's direct-comparison argument to Dr. Dhanasar himself (different field, employer R&D budget irrelevant to individual-focused prong two); also discounts post-filing evidence (Uganda trip, peer-review invitations, O-1 approval) as not existing at time of filing; addresses discontinued ResearchGate RG Score metric in detail via footnote.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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