The Petitioner, a psychologist, sought an NIW but did not describe a specific proposed endeavor, instead relying on general 'governmental evidence' about the psychology profession's importance and on prior work-experience letters.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Director was correct that the "governmental evidence" the Petitioner submitted did not address their specific endeavor's national importance.”

“The Petitioner's statements contain broad assertions like the Petitioner is a "qualified professional,"”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor.”

“the recommendation and work experience letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support”

“the record does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor in a manner sufficient for us to evaluate”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not analyze the proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “only speak of the Petitioner's competent execution of past job duties”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not reference the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance”

  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
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO expressly withdrew the Director's favorable finding on prong 2, reversing a determination that had favored the Petitioner, and extensively defended the practice of adopting/affirming the Director's reasoning against a Buletini-based abuse-of-discretion argument, citing multiple circuit court authorities.

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
• Buletini v. INS
• Chen v. INS
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of Y-B-

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