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, a healthcare and life sciences management specialist, proposed to provide consulting/services related to commercialization and innovation of translational research, including work on medical devices, drugs, and gene therapy projects for client companies.
Field: healthcare and life sciences management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the technology developed byl lis trademarked and the subject of hundreds of patents, which suggests it is not available to the public, science at large”
“he does not assert that he provides services beyond the specific companies that hire or contract him”
“the speculative nature of the projects would preclude us from determining the national importance of them”
“relates to the overall importance of the commercialization and innovation stage from research rather than identifying and establishing the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“as the Petitioner's work on a gene therapy project ... came into existence after the filing of the petition, evidence of such project cannot be considered”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“it appears that the benefit accrues to the organizations that pay for the Petitioner's services and to those entities that purchase the products”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the technology developed by ... is trademarked and the subject of hundreds of patents, which suggests it is not available to the public”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the unknown nature of the Petitioner's various future projects would prevent us from ascertaining whether the Petitioner's services would rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner argued for wholesale replacement of the Dhanasar framework with an NSF-style national importance standard and argued the framework unduly disadvantages 'corporate innovators'; AAO rejected both arguments as outside its authority to alter precedent. AAO also applied Izummi/Bardouille rule barring consideration of post-filing facts (the gene therapy project with a named company) even under prong two, since it postdated the petition filing.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution