The Petitioner, a researcher of international relations, proposed to combine teaching and research activities in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“does not provide sufficient details, corroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have 'national or even global implications within a particular field.'”

“We also concluded that the Petitioner had not provided enough details about the nature of her intended employment, which would affect its national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“We agreed with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner had not satisfied the second Dhanasar prong with sufficient evidence to show that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief previously presented and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not provide sufficient details, corroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have 'national or even global implications within a particular field.'”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

This is the Petitioner's third successive motion to reconsider in the same proceeding; the AAO's analysis focuses almost entirely on motion-practice standards (repetition of prior briefs, failure to identify specific record error) rather than re-litigating the Dhanasar prongs, which are only recapped from earlier decisions. The third Dhanasar prong was never reached in any prior decision.

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)(1)(i)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of O-S-G-

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