A doctoral candidate and graduate research assistant proposed to design and eventually deploy advanced electronics/AI-enabled systems and devices with applications described as important to several critical U.S. industries.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we note that this letter does not provide sufficient examples indicating that the Petitioner's work is impactful or otherwise constitutes a record of success in his field.”

“the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence that his work has influenced the field of endeavor.”

“the record does not demonstrate 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.”

“while the Petitioner benefited from the grant, he is not listed as the primary contact, an investigator or program manager.”

“we conclude that the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not provide sufficient examples indicating that the Petitioner's work is impactful or otherwise constitutes a record of success”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the record does not demonstrate that the number of citations received by his published articles reflects a level of interest in his work”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “he is not listed as the primary contact, an investigator or program manager”

  AAO decision text
• awards · credited
• degree · credited

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
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

The AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW adjudication is discretionary, an unusual circuit-court citation in an AAO decision. The AAO also expressly stated its second-prong finding was an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, declining to reach the third prong.

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
• INA 203(b)(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