A postdoctoral chemical engineering researcher specializing in soft materials (e.g., membranes) sought to pursue a faculty career in academia, conducting research on energy, water shortage, and disease-related problems while teaching and training students.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“As the Petitioner has demonstrated both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed research, we conclude that he meets the fust prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“they do not provide specific examples indicating that his research has been sufficiently implemented, utilized, or otherwise affected his field”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects”

“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his published work has served as an impetus for progress in his field, generated substantial positive discourse in the industry”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not provide specific examples indicating that his research has been sufficiently implemented, utilized, or otherwise affected his field”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not show that the Petitioner (rather than his professor, for example) was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research projects”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• 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

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's negative prong 1 finding but still dismissed on prong 2, explicitly comparing petitioner's citation record and funding role against the facts of Dhanasar itself to show why his evidence fell short; also invoked footnote on Clarivate/Google Scholar citation methodology critique.

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)
• Matter of E-M-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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