NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL212026_01B52032026-07-21 · appeal

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, who holds a foreign medical degree and completed a one-year residency in a TB-related subspecialty, proposed to work as an independent public health specialist analyzing treatment adherence barriers and structural obstacles in tuberculosis care and offering recommendations to health departments, clinics, and care networks in California.

Field: public health / tuberculosis care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not established the broader implications of this local work.”
“The assertion that his work will establish "models" that can be more broadly emulated amounts to speculation.”
“we agree that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“he has not claimed or documented any past experience as a public health specialist or health education specialist”
“The record does not show how these publishers selected the Petitioner, and what those publishers' standards are”
“they do not present a coherent picture in sufficient detail to show that the Petitioner is well positioned to undertake that work”
“The letters also do not establish that the Petitioner has any prior experience as a public health specialist”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not indicate that the Petitioner's work had a significant impact beyond the institutions where he trained”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    “The Petitioner did not establish that these articles have had any impact on tuberculosis care.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “he has not claimed or documented any past experience as a public health specialist or health education specialist”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “amounts to speculation”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not support the inferences that the Petitioner draws regarding the implications of the invitations”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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
1,358coded 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

The petitioner held a foreign medical degree and TB-related residency training but sought to work in a distinct, non-clinical occupation (public health specialist) in which he had no documented experience; the AAO stressed it would not presume a medical degree qualifies someone for this different field. The AAO also discounted peer-review invitation emails as evidence of professional demand because several concerned manuscripts on unrelated medical topics outside the petitioner's specialty.

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)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer