The petitioner, a dentist-scientist with a PhD in dental surgery, proposed to research lasers, dental caries, and restorative dentistry to improve products and procedures for preventing and mitigating tooth decay, intending to pursue a research assistant position at a U.S. dental college.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the fact that the Petitioner does not currently have such a position weighs against demonstrating either a specific model or plan for future activities or progress toward achieving the endeavor”

“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of support from the university for this position, nor evidence of funding for or availability of such a position”

“we do not consider the fact that the Petitioner's citation record to be evidence of the Petitioner's own progress toward achieving her endeavor”

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

“we conclude that this assertion is not sufficiently established by the record”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

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

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · credited
• degree · credited
• patents · ignored

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• 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 agreed with Petitioner that her citation record was proportionally more impressive than Dr. Dhanasar's own record cited in the namesake precedent, but still discounted it, distinguishing that Dhanasar had consistent government funding and an active postdoctoral position while this Petitioner lacked employment, funding, or institutional support.

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
• 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