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 initially proposed to work as a medical researcher investigating human diseases, but later shifted to plans involving obtaining a U.S. medical license, operating a medical supply business, opening/franchising medical clinics, and advising businesses on expansion.
Field: medicine / medical research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the endeavor lacked specificity and therefore lacked the detail required to establish eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong”
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific endeavor”
“The record reflects neither how the Petitioner proposes to advise companies on their business expansion projects or encourage major investment and trade opportunities”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding a specific proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“expressed interest in employing the Petitioner in an unknown capacity”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner relies upon previously submitted evidence and arguments to support her eligibility”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Case involves a material change in the proposed endeavor between initial filing and RFE responses (from 'medical researcher' to a mix of licensure, business ownership, and clinic franchising), which the AAO treated as fatal to establishing a specific endeavor under prong 1, and consequently found prong 2 also unmet without separate analysis. This was the second time before the AAO after a prior remand to the Director.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially and repeatedly changed her proposed endeavor across filings, leaving no single specific, consistent undertaking for the panel to evaluate under prong one or two.
Define one specific, stable endeavor from filing through appeal; abandoning or multiplying proposed activities is fatal regardless of underlying credentials.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area
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