The Petitioner, a speech language pathologist, proposed to conduct clinical-based research on more effective language acquisition treatments for bilingual children with and without developmental disabilities, focusing on maintaining home language to support second-language learning and cultural identity.

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“we agree with the Director that the evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”

“these presentations do not sufficiently establish a record of success, interest from potential users, or other evidence”

“the Petitioner's participation in this study does not establish that she has garnered the level of interest in or funding for her research”

“many of the letters contain conclusory statements or characterizations about the Petitioner and her work that are not sufficiently supported by specifics”

“several of the letters primarily discuss her contributions as an employee”

“the lack of a citation record does make the claim that the Petitioner's work is "influential" and "filling a gap" in the research literature to be less persuasive”

“the Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “many of the letters contain conclusory statements or characterizations about the Petitioner and her work that are not sufficiently supported by specifics”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “the lack of a citation record does make the claim that the Petitioner's work is "influential" ... less persuasive”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “it is not clear how highly involved the Petitioner was in the study”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record is not clear that they are directly related to presenting her research findings in speech language pathology”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

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 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
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

Petitioner argued the Director improperly reverted to the pre-Dhanasar NYSDOT framework; AAO rejected this, finding the Director's language (re: 'general pool of knowledge') consistent with proper Dhanasar prong 2 analysis. AAO explicitly declined to reach prong 3, reserving opinion under INS v. Bagamasbad.

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
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
• The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
• The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
• The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
• The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his