The Petitioner, a physician trained in Brazil, proposed to work in the U.S. specializing in fetal medicine, general ultrasound, and endometriosis diagnosis, while also teaching medical education to impact U.S. health care.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to show that his solutions or methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States”

“it does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's "solutions" or the endeavor's impact extending beyond a particular employer or patients that he will serve as a physician”

“the record does not support the Petitioner's work as a physician or dissemination of his knowledge or skills would be on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “generally praised his skills as a physician and referred to his past work experiences”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “they do not adequately demonstrate the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it only provides a general overview on the importance of the medical profession and does not address the Petitioner's specific procedures or methodologies”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not offer any new evidence”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact

Notable

AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as circuit authority confirming NIW is discretionary, joining Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; Director had found prong 1 partially met (merit but not importance) and prong 2 met but prong 3 not met, while AAO instead based dismissal solely on prong 1 national importance failure and declined to reach prongs 2-3.

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
• 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