The Petitioner, a visiting assistant professor and psychology researcher, proposed to continue research using data science techniques and evolutionary/cross-cultural theories to study how ecological threats (natural disasters, violent conflicts, infectious disease outbreaks) affect human mental health, cognition, and behavior.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“SCOPS found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with SCOPS that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar's first prong.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“a degree, in and of itself: is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“a Ph.D. and a record of publications are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”

“It does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success in their field.”

“these letters are supportive in tone and positive factors, they generally lack specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts.”

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of funding or long-term academic appointment that would lead to the advancement of his research endeavor.”

“he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed research.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “does not, however, show the influence of any particular author or otherwise demonstrate how an individual's research represents a record of success”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “generally lack specific and concrete examples demonstrating how the Petitioner's work has been adopted, applied in practical settings, or changed the course of other research efforts”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “a degree, in and of itself, is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is particularly well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the document does not contain the full email exchange, identify the recipient, the date it was sent, or provide sufficient basis for assessing the accuracy or reliability”

  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
• 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

Petitioner raised an abuse-of-discretion argument citing Buletini v. INS, contending SCOPS failed to review the totality of evidence; AAO rejected this, holding adjudicators need not individually address every piece of evidence if reasoned consideration is given. AAO also distinguished the case from Matter of Dhanasar itself, noting Dhanasar had three advanced degrees, consistent government funding, and a significant research role, whereas this Petitioner lacked comparable funding or long-term appointment evidence.

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. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Buletini v. INS
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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