The Petitioner, a neurosurgeon and researcher, proposed two related endeavors in the United States: practicing as a medical doctor treating neurosurgical/cerebrovascular patients, and continuing research on neurosurgical treatment techniques and publications.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information and details to reflect a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar”

“the shortage of neurosmgeons and physicians in the United States does not render his potential employment nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the Petitioner did not establish how his employment would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar”

“the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his prospective employment at a hospital, institution, or other medical organization”

“He did not differentiate his proposed endeavor from his past work.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “He did not differentiate his proposed endeavor from his past work.”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director”

  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
• 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

The Director had already conceded the advanced-degree classification, leaving only the NIW prongs at issue; the AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, and separately declined to consider new evidence (workforce shortage articles) submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Obaigbena.

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.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• Poursina v. USCIS

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