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, an ENT physician and surgeon, proposed to establish a network of clinics providing rehabilitative services for speech, swallowing, and hearing disorders, including mobile health units and community outreach.
Field: ear, nose and throat (ENT) medicine / otolaryngology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was undisputed and affirmed.
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner does not articulate, however, how it would be impractical for the Petitioner to secure a job offer or obtain a labor certification.”
“The Petitioner has also not established that the national interest in his contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process.”
“the authors of the Petitioner's support letters do not indicate that the national interest in the Petitioner's work is so urgent it could not wait for him to obtain a labor certification.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · credited
- business plan · credited
- funding · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Strong positive factor rejected · p3 — the STEM critical-and-emerging-technology factor was claimed but not accepted on the record
- Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
Notable
Unusual outcome: AAO expressly reversed the Director on prong 2 (finding Petitioner well-positioned) but affirmed denial solely on prong 3, emphasizing lack of urgency and impracticality argument despite crediting the STEM advanced degree as a 'strong positive factor' under USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2).
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
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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