The petitioner, a postdoctoral medical researcher, proposed to investigate mechanisms underlying autoimmune and inflammatory diseases to identify novel therapeutic targets and develop treatments for conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we do note that the works which have received the most attention appear to be those in which the Petitioner was one of several contributors”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner has obtained or is working toward obtaining his own funding to pursue his proposed endeavor”

“The record does not sufficiently demonstrate whether the Petitioner is advancing his own research or primarily supporting the research of others”

“the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how this prior research receiving funding supports the conclusion that his proposed endeavor will have similar interest or support”

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “the works which have received the most attention appear to be those in which the Petitioner was one of several contributors”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently establish that there is interest in or support for the Petitioner pursuing his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• recommendation letter · ignored

Where this case turned

• Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• 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

AAO explicitly agreed with petitioner's underlying EB-2 threshold and prong 1 (substantial merit/national importance, as found by Director), dismissing solely on prong 2, and expressly declined to reach prongs 1 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to make advisory findings. AAO distinguished the petitioner's funding evidence from the funding evidence credited in Matter of Dhanasar itself, contrasting authorship position (10th listed author) as undermining claimed record of success.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 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