The Petitioner sought to continue research on the anticipation, recognition, control, and prevention of silicosis and other occupational lung diseases, applying sampling techniques to improve worker safety standards, while also mentoring high school students in a research program.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“We noted that his proposed endeavor of mentoring and instructing high school students in the would not impact environmental health education more broadly.”

“Rather, the record indicates that his work will be limited to the students at the institution where he serves.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the record did not adequately document the claimed significance of his work”

“We therefore determined that the record did not show a record of success or progress in his tield, or a degree of interest in his work from relevant parties”

“he does not explain the Petitioner's role in the project or document that his work was central to stabilization of the landtill”

“we cannot conclude that the newly submitted evidence sufficiently renders the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's motion to reopen does not include evidence relating to the third prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“he has not overcome our finding that on balance. the Petitioner has not established that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the evidence submitted does not explain how these students' accomplishments show that his work would serve to impact the tield of environmental health education more broadly”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “a letter from which had been provided as supporting evidence, did not mention the Petitioner”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this report does not explain the Petitioner's role in the project or document that his work was central to stabilization of the landtill”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• 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

This is a motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal of the underlying appeal (Matter of C-W-K-, ID# 330051, June 13, 2017). AAO applies distinct legal standards for motion to reconsider (error of law) versus motion to reopen (new facts), finding neither satisfied. The AAO explicitly clarifies its own 'new facts' standard differs from BIA's availability-based standard.

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(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