A foreign-trained general practitioner with nine years of experience proposed to work as a primary care clinician and emergency consultant in U.S. health professional shortage areas, though he was not shown to be a licensed physician in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance”

“The Petitioner's personal statements are not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in the abstract”

“does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective impact on the United States”

“Rather, his opinion is general in nature, concluding that, the Petitioner "is an established professional in an area of substantial merit and national importance" without providing a substantive analysis.”

“The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide a business plan to describe how he intends to offer his services”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “do not establish [that he] has made progress toward working as a general practice physician, which has different education and licensure requirements”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “articles addressing the shortage of healthcare professionals as an issue of national concern”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

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

Petitioner attempted to argue on appeal that the Director improperly applied the physician-specific NIW standard under 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) rather than Dhanasar; AAO rejected this, finding the Director correctly applied Dhanasar since the petition was never filed as a physician NIW case. AAO also noted in a footnote that even if it had reached the other prongs, it would still have dismissed the appeal, since the Director had also found prongs two and three unmet and Petitioner's appellate brief merely re-referenced the same previously submitted evidence.

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)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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