The Petitioner, an assistant professor, proposes to continue research developing human-in-the-loop AI frameworks for public health monitoring and pandemic surveillance, enabling early warnings and evidence-based decision-making.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated a consistent level of interest in research funding or interest from government agencies to pursue his proposed endeavor.”

“the record does not provide a level of detail necessary to understand whether the research grants contain ongoing funding support, or if the grants were limited to the research already conducted.”

“the record does not sufficiently evidence if the Petitioner has obtained his own grants as a principal investigator”

“many of the citations appear to come from only a handful of researchers, which does not establish the level of impact or interest in the Petitioner's research endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the long-term feasibility of his proposed endeavor or evidence demonstrating he has the means or financial support”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explicitly state what amount of time he will devote to his duties as a professor versus to his research or how the two are connected”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “service as a peer reviewer is a common activity among researchers and academics and does not, without additional evidence, demonstrate that an individual's work has had a significant impact”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “The statistics are quantitative in nature and do not reveal the reasons for the citations, which would involve a qualitative analysis to corroborate his assertion”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not provide a level of detail necessary to understand whether the research grants contain ongoing funding support, or if the grants were limited to the research already conducted”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• 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

The AAO explicitly compared the Petitioner's record unfavorably to the facts in Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting that the Dhanasar petitioner had consistent government agency funding and corroborated peer/government interest. The AAO also raised a detailed footnote questioning whether the Petitioner's $115,000 salary covered research duties, flagging the ambiguity as central to the funding analysis. P1 and P3 were expressly reserved under INS v. Bagamasbad.

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