The petitioner, an internal medicine resident, proposed to continue cardiovascular research examining treatment techniques for coronary occlusions and optimal statin dosages, alongside his clinical patient care duties.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the record does not establish that his clinical work would impact the field of cardiovascular medicine or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”

“the Petitioner has not shown that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the cardiovascular medicine field”

“but the Petitioner has not shown that these findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field”

“As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not shown that these findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not documented the reputation of these journals or offered other documentation demonstrating that his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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

The AAO explicitly rebutted the Petitioner's argument that he had a stronger citation record than the petitioner in Matter of Dhanasar itself, clarifying that citation counts were not the basis for that precedent's second-prong finding. The decision also separately found clinical patient-care work failed prong 1's national importance element even though the research endeavor passed prong 1, illustrating a split treatment of dual endeavors within one petitioner's activities.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
• The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
• The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
• The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
• The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his