dismissedJUN112026_02B52032026-06-11 · 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, a biomedical scientist and biotechnology executive, proposed to establish a venture consulting and strategic advisory practice in the U.S. to support early-stage biotech companies working on infectious disease diagnostics, immunotherapies, and synthetic biology.
Field: biotechnology venture consulting / investment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not illustrate how his specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond his company and clients to impact the industry or nation more broadly.”
“the benefits of his future work appear to primarily flow to his clients rather than to the field.”
“The Petitioner also relies heavily on the value of the biotechnology field rather than demonstrating how his specific work establishing a venture consulting and strategic advisory practice providing individualized services for his clients would have broader impacts rising to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner does not offer specific, objective evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact, including job creation, directly attributable to his future work.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these are factors which relate more to the second prong, which 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.'”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles and reports speak to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, they do not establish how his work specifically would have broader, nationally important implications.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“this evidence and the Petitioner's related assertions [are] more relevant to Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not explained... how any of his 'original works' would be considered innovative or an improvement in processes beyond any benefits or efficiencies provided to his own company or his clients.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
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 rejected petitioner's argument that USCIS mischaracterized his endeavor as non-STEM, finding the endeavor was 'primarily centered in the financial field' (investment/consulting) rather than biotechnology, distinguishing it from direct STEM work despite claimed 'STEM-related outcomes.'
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers