The Petitioner, a biostatistician with a PhD in mechanical engineering, proposed to develop a novel smartphone-based 12-lead electrocardiogram medical-grade device to improve early diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agree with SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor is not sufficiently detailed”

“the record does not contain evidence to explain how this device will be novel and there is little specific evidence in the record about the specifics of this product”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“The evidence regarding the societal impact of cardiovascular disease does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed medical device will contribute to cardiovascular health or to the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“The Petitioner has not shown how this paper, or its inclusion in this database, relates to the proposed endeavor or helps establish its potential prospective impact.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “The evidence regarding the societal impact of cardiovascular disease does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed medical device will contribute...at a level commensurate with national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not shown how this paper, or its inclusion in this database, relates to the proposed endeavor or helps establish its potential prospective impact.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The employer letter, however, does not discuss the proposed endeavor and does not support the Petitioner's claim that this employment aligns with or furthers the endeavor.”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO noted that the Petitioner's stated intention to continue in his current, unrelated biostatistician role 'for the foreseeable future' further diminished credibility of his endeavor claims, blending prong 1 and prong 2 considerations. The AAO expressly declined to reach substantial merit or prongs 2-3, citing 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
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod