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.
A Brazilian-trained pharmacist sought to work in some unspecified capacity within the U.S. pharmaceutical field, later identified as an 'infection prevention and control specialist,' without specifying the actual duties she would perform.
Field: pharmacy / infection prevention and control · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability under criteria (A) degree, (C) license, and (E) professional association membership. AAO found (A) and (C) met but (E) not met because the record did not establish that the organization was a qualifying professional association or that membership requirements were shown, and the supporting translation lacked required certification. Because only two of three criteria were met, she did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she did not describe or document it with sufficient specificity to establish what impact it would have, or how that impact would rise to the level of national impmiance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where a noncitizen will work, but the specific impact that will be attributable to the proposed endeavor”
“None of the documentation provided specifies what kind of work the Petitioner intends to perform within this occupation”
“a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the evidence provided is insufficient to establish that [the organization] is a professional association or that the Petitioner is a member of it”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it was not apparent from this information what actual work the Petitioner will perform”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO rejected an unusual argument that 'infectious disease is a subfield of Pharmacy' to justify treating a list of disparate potential jobs as a single coherent endeavor; also faulted an uncertified, partially illegible translation of a foreign organization's website under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(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. 103.2(b)(3)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor (shifting among job titles/occupations), making it impossible to assess its impact or national importance under Dhanasar prong one.
Define one concrete, specific endeavor with defined duties and mechanism of impact; do not rely on general occupation descriptions or industry importance.
vague
public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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