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 proposed to continue working as a medical assistant for a medical facility in Florida.
Field: medical assisting / healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; she abandoned this issue by failing to contest it in her initial appeal, rendering it waived and dispositive in all subsequent proceedings on this petition.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“we explained that although the Petitioner not qualifying for the EB-2 classification was dispositive of her appeal, we nevertheless, reviewed the record, finding that she did not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“did not assert an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, or present new facts supported by evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
This is a second motion to reconsider following a prior combined motion to reopen/reconsider, both dismissed. The AAO deemed the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification issue waived because the Petitioner's original appeal brief addressed only the national interest waiver and not her eligibility for the EB-2 classification itself; under Matter of Garcia (BIA 2023), this rendered the classification issue abandoned and dispositive in all subsequent proceedings on the same petition, regardless of any NIW merits. The AAO expressly declined to reach Dhanasar prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid advisory findings.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to contest the EB-2 advanced-degree classification denial on appeal, waiving it; this waived issue alone was dispositive, and the motion identified no legal error to disturb that waiver or the prior national-importance finding.
On appeal, affirmatively address every ground of denial (including underlying visa classification), or risk permanent waiver barring relief regardless of NIW merits.
vague
other
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