This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, an epidemiologist, intended to continue biomedical research on patient safety in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance in connection with CDC initiatives.
Field: epidemiology (Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The record, however, does not include comparative statistics indicating how often other epidemiology researchers are cited”
“the information they provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has served as an impetus for progress”
“This information about U.S. worker shortages, however, does not relate to her eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong.”
“This evidence post-dates the filing of the petition and therefore does not show her eligibility under the second prong”
“As the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, she has not met the second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“does not include comparative statistics indicating how often other epidemiology researchers are cited”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the information in their letters was addressed in our appellate decision”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not include new information or evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our previous decision”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not relate to her eligibility under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p2 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal; the Petitioner also raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Lozada framework, which the AAO analyzed and rejected for failure to meet Lozada's threshold documentary requirements and failure to show prejudice. Petitioner submitted unrelated personal circumstances (car accident, broken laptop, misdirected mail) which AAO found irrelevant to the Dhanasar analysis.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
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