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 initially claimed to be a medical doctor seeking to practice medicine in the U.S., but later, after RFEs, indicated she instead worked as an Epidemiologist for a Texas health department investigating COVID-19 cases, while also referencing continued academic research.
Field: medicine / epidemiology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Director found her an advanced degree professional, but AAO found the record insufficient to establish she is a licensed physician; unsigned/unexplained credential evaluations given little weight; even accepting a new MBA transcript submitted on appeal would not establish she is a physician.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the specific nature of her proposed endeavor remains unclear”
“a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient or consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“we cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong, or that she has established eligibility for a national interest waiver”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evaluations are unsigned and do not include explanations for the conclusions reached”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the ECFMG certificate is not evidence of licensure to practice medicine”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not describe the future work the Petitioner would undertake in her proposed endeavor, but rather focused on her past work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this evidence pertains to her current job and does not set forth a plan for future work”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Unusual fact pattern: Petitioner materially changed her claimed occupation mid-proceeding from 'medical doctor' to 'Epidemiologist' in response to RFEs, which the AAO treated as an improper material change under Matter of Izummi/Michelin Tire, and used to find both threshold eligibility and prongs 1-2 unmet; also credential evaluations were unsigned and one certificate was issued by a religious organization rather than the university itself.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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