The Petitioner, a radiologist, proposed to serve as CEO of a radiology clinic providing clinical radiological treatments, including interventional procedures in oncology and obstetrics.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner maintains that he "plans to revolutionize medical diagnostics and interventional radiology," but does not provide concrete examples beyond his willingness to remain updated on advances in the field”

“the proposed endeavor in this case is limited to the provision of clinical care for radiology patients”

“the evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate that his medical practice would result in significant benefits to the regional or national economy”

“Labor certification waivers are not granted to classes of occupations; national interest waivers are intrinsically tied to the prospective potential impact of the specific endeavor in question”

“The Petitioner's contention that his work as a part of these nationally important fields necessarily demonstrates his endeavor's importance is misplaced”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “his business plan and other evidence does not indicate that a significant portion of his work with [] would be dedicated to furthering research”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not reflect that the Petitioner was involved in the development of these techniques or that he otherwise stands to advance the practice of radiology”

  AAO decision text
• citations publications · discounted

  “he has not shown that he is involved in research that is likely to result in advancements or changes in the field of radiology”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this alone is not sufficient to show the endeavor's national importance”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO expressly withdrew the Director's threshold EB-2 denial (finding the CEO endeavor related to the Petitioner's medical degree) but affirmed denial solely on prong one national importance, reserving prongs two and three under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- reasoning.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-

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