NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN072021_05B52032021-06-07 · appeal · Nebraska 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.

A cardiologist and division director proposed to continue clinical patient care, teaching/leadership of technicians and students, and clinical research into valvular heart disease and cardio-oncology, including exploring mobile clinics for underserved areas.

Field: cardiology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's clinical work would impact the field of cardiovascular medicine or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific patients and workplace he serves
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, he has not provided evidence to substantiate them.
Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's clinical activities do not meet the "national importance" element
the record does not include sufficient information or supporting evidence identifying the specific research projects he intends to undertake to demonstrate the nature and extent of his proposed research

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

None of the citations are included in the record and therefore it is not known how of many of these sixteen total citations are self-citations
The Petitioner has not shown that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the cardiovascular medicine field
does not, however, describe with specific detail how this research represents a significant contribution to the literature on the subject
Any attention it gathered has not been substantiated in the record.
As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    does not describe any actual impact the research has had
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · discounted
    citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    none of the duties he identified for the Petitioner include research
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    there is no indication that this study has been cited by others
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Local, not national scope · p1impact confined to clients / a region
  • Citations insufficient · p2citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Letters conclusory · p2letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 analogized to its own prior treatment of teaching activities in Dhanasar itself to reject the Petitioner's teaching/leadership impact claims; decision expressly rests on independent alternate bases (prongs 1 and 2) without reaching prong 3.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles