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 business development manager with pharmaceutical/biotech experience, proposed to work with pharmaceutical companies to address bottlenecks in antibody drug development for cancer immunotherapies; on appeal he shifted focus to promoting his new employer's 'Tumor Portrait' precision-oncology platform.
Field: pharmaceutical/biotech drug development (business development) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish its national importance.”
“The dramatic change in the Petitioner's focus leaves substantial uncertainty as to the potential prospective national impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
“the Petitioner provides no objective projections related to these "numerous jobs" or the estimated economic impact of the platform.”
“The Petitioner did not submit specific and targeted business plans but provides generic assertions about impacting numerous aspects of the economy.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter discusses his expertise and experience, rather than the potential national impacts of a specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“The Petitioner did not submit specific and targeted business plans but provides generic assertions about impacting numerous aspects of the economy.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner has listed numerous potential national impacts of his work but provided little objective support as to how his work would lead to all these impacts.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO emphasized that the Petitioner materially changed the focus of his proposed endeavor between the initial filing (antibody drug bottlenecks at L-W-) and his RFE response (Tumor Portrait platform at B- Corporation), invoking Matter of Izummi's prohibition on post-filing material changes as evidence undermining national importance.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod