dismissedAUG152023_02B52032023-08-15 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 physician and general surgeon specializing in oncologic breast surgery, proposed to work in the U.S. treating breast pathologies, providing patient care and consulting, and training other medical professionals.
Field: oncologic breast surgery · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual physician or surgeon nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
“the Petitioner has not offered evidence indicating that her specific undertaking has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's clinical and instructional work stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future patients and medical trainees to impact academia or the field of oncologic breast surgery more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The aforementioned letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work... offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's claims regarding her experience as a physician, medical qualifications, and surgical skills relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Petitioner cited a non-precedent AAO decision (Matter of E-C-H-) as analogous; AAO rejected the comparison, noting non-precedent decisions do not bind future adjudications and are distinguishable on their facts. Decision also references a physician-shortage-area waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) that the Petitioner did not ultimately pursue.
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(c)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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