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, an assistant professor and pharmaceutical chemist, proposed to work in the U.S. in some combination of pharmaceutical/academic research, teaching, consulting for federal health agencies on issues like HIV/AIDS and drinking water safety, and eventually establishing his own consulting firm.
Field: pharmaceutical/analytical chemistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor( s)”
“generally describing broad areas of experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner could consult with or provide advice to federal agencies without evidence is insufficient”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's instructional work would impact the field of pharmacy, or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the students that he teaches”
“they do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“He farther noted that he would first seek faculty and research positions at universities, then later would develop his own consulting firm”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO expressly declines to reach prong 2 and 3 because prong 1 failure alone is dispositive; notes petitioner's specific endeavor was too diffuse (spanning multiple potential fields/employers, from federal HIV consulting to teaching to his own consulting firm) to allow assessment of national importance.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify a concrete, specific endeavor; instead offered shifting, generalized plans (teaching, consulting, possible federal agency work) that could not be evaluated for national importance.
Define one concrete endeavor with a clear mechanism and scope, then show its broader field- or nationwide impact—not just personal qualifications or a list of possible roles.
vague
public_health · stem_positive_factor · us_competitiveness · field_advancement
person_focused