dismissedJUL182023_04B52032023-07-18 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 Brazilian-trained head and neck surgeon, proposed to work as a surgeon in the United States, later attempting to specify this as a clinical associate surgeon position in endocrine surgery at a clinic in Ohio.

Field: surgery/medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not specify a type of surgery or specialization that he would pursue.”

“the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be limited to serving the patients of the hospital or institution where he would be working”

“The fact of a shortage of U.S. workers in an occupation, such as endocrine surgeons, is not evidence of a related specific endeavor's national importance.”

“The Petitioner does not provide evidence that would support the conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of physicians, decrease the cost of healthcare, or increase access to healthcare in rural communities on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“this evidence generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework...and whether he is well-positioned to advance it”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“this evidence of the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“this evidence of the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“The articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner nor his proposed endeavor of working as a surgeon and do not support the endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“we will not consider the specifics of the location and the specialty of the...Clinic job opportunity as part of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, because those are circumstances that arose after the filing of the petition”
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

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO treated the Petitioner's post-filing specification of endeavor (endocrine surgery at a named clinic in an underserved Ohio location) as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, and evaluated national importance only against the originally-claimed generic endeavor of 'working as a surgeon.' The AAO also expressly reserved on both prongs 2 and 3 and on EB-2 threshold classification, resolving the case entirely on prong 1.

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)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Matter of Izummi
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer