The Petitioner, a dentist and medical scientist trained in Brazil, proposed to continue oral health research on alternative dental treatments in the United States, while also potentially practicing clinically and teaching.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the record does not establish that her proposed clinical and teaching work stand to impact the dentistry field or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly. as opposed to being limited to the patients she serves and her dental students.”

“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed oral health research meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not include citation evidence to support his claim.”

“the record does not indicate that their work has affected pain management practices in the dental community or otherwise constitutes a record of success or progress in her research field.”

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

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not include citation evidence to support his claim”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “her evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a record of success in academic research”

  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
• 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
• 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 split the petitioner's proposed endeavor into components (research vs. clinical practice/teaching), finding only the research component satisfied prong 1 nationally, while clinical/teaching work was deemed too locally limited, citing Dhanasar itself as precedent for that conclusion regarding teaching.

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)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of E-M-
• 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