The Petitioner, a postdoctoral fellow, proposed to continue research using molecular biological techniques to elucidate mechanisms of metabolic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and NAFLD, aiming to develop novel therapeutic strategies.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“Accordingly, we withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the professor does not provide sufficient detail to establish that the Petitioner's work on its own has affected the field or otherwise represents a record of success”

“the letter does not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field or otherwise constitutes a record of success”

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

“she has not provided an explanation of how she intends to continue this research”

“Without a statement of interest or intent from I or in the alternative, evidence of potential funding, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she currently has the ability to pursue her proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not established she was a named grant recipient”

“the record does not similarly support the Petitioner's prospective future funding and interest to advance her endeavor”

“As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letter does not further elaborate and sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's work has been utilized in the field”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “Citation frequency which is quantitative in nature does not reveal the reasons for citations, which involve a qualitative analysis”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not established she was a named grant recipient”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “Although the Petitioner's advanced degree in a STEM field is an especially positive factor, it is not a sufficient basis to determine that she is well positioned”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not offered documentation demonstrating that her peer review experience rises to the level of rendering her well positioned”

  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
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• 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 withdrew SCOPS' negative prong 1 finding, expressly crediting national importance based on the biotechnology/critical-emerging-technology field, but affirmed denial on prong 2 despite that concession, emphasizing that citation counts alone (quantitative) cannot substitute for qualitative proof of field impact and distinguishing the case from Dhanasar's own funding/role facts in detail.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

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