This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a teacher and autism spectrum disorder education researcher, sought to continue research and teaching in this field in the United States.
Field: autism spectrum disorder education research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“we determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that she meets the second and third prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“the present motion does not offer new facts or evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner satisfies the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The present motion offers no new facts or evidence addressing her eligibility or overcoming our findings.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided documents meeting the evidentiary requirements set forth in Lozada.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p2 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
This decision primarily concerns a third motion to reopen based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (Lozada framework) rather than a substantive re-analysis of the NIW prongs; the AAO denies the motion because Lozada's documentary requirements were not met and because no new evidence was offered on prongs 2 and 3, which had been found unmet in prior decisions. Prong 1 was apparently not at issue in this or prior motions.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to meet Lozada's threshold evidentiary requirements for ineffective-assistance claims and offered no new facts curing prior findings that she failed Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3.
A motion to reopen must supply new, substantive evidence on unmet Dhanasar prongs; procedural ineffective-assistance claims cannot substitute for merits evidence and must meet Lozada's strict documentary requirements.
vague
mixed
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