dismissedMAR292023_04B52032023-03-29 · appeal · Texas 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 South Korean physician proposed to establish his own U.S. company to conduct medical research, facilitate exchange of advanced medical technology and investment between Korea and the U.S., and sell U.S. medical technology and equipment in Korea.
Field: medicine/ophthalmology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The record lacked corroborating evidence (e.g., transcripts) of the Petitioner's foreign medical degrees, and the academic equivalency evaluation was based on documents not submitted for review, so the Petitioner failed to establish he qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The Petitioner has not identified a specific research area within the field of ophthalmology, nor has he described any specific technique or technology that he proposes to bring to the United States.”
“the Petitioner has not explained how the sale of U.S. medical technologies and equipment to South Korea would benefit the United States on a scale commensurate with national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“this would be insufficient to evidence that they have any knowledge of or interest in the Petitioner's plans to influence and persuade them”
“Although he submitted a business plan, the Petitioner offers little evidence of his progress in carrying out such plans or anyone interested in his services.”
“The Petitioner has not explained how he will fund his endeavor.”
“The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not contain corroborating evidence of these degrees, such as the Petitioner's transcripts”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner offers little evidence of his progress in carrying out such plans or anyone interested in his services”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“some of the Petitioner's certificates indicate that his election or appointment to a particular role within the organizations has expired”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“Counsel has not submitted evidence to support his assertion that these top media outlets will not just quote anyone's comments”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a 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 withdrew the Director's favorable findings on both the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification and the first Dhanasar prong, going further than the denial to find multiple independent grounds for ineligibility while declining to reach the third prong.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
- 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