The Petitioner, a pharmacist, intended to work in dispensing pharmacies promoting vaccinations, patient monitoring, and pharmaceutical care, and to serve as a pharmaceutical manager implementing methodologies like prescription drug monitoring and medication therapy management.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we also agree that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong”

“any benefits from the Petitioner's proposed activities appeared to only benefit his potential employer(s) and customers, as well as any pharmacist he may manage or mentor.”

“Several of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any pharmacist, but Congress did not provide a blanket exemption”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Beyond a description of them, the Petitioner did not identify how specifically he would improve or change these existing methodologies”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not mention the proposed endeavor or explain why the Petitioner's specific proposed work is nationally important”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The national interest waiver is not intended to address labor shortages.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner simply asserts that the Director's conclusion is inaccurate, and resubmits the same arguments previously submitted”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO explicitly rejects Petitioner's argument that past achievements can be used to estimate prospective impact under prong 1, clarifying this conflates prong 1 and prong 2 analysis under Dhanasar. Also cites Dhanasar's own facts (teaching activities) as analogous precedent within the same decision it created.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-

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