The Petitioner, a foreign-trained physician, proposed to provide comprehensive/integrative medical services to underserved and uninsured populations in the United States, while also having worked as a medical assistant instructor and volunteer health educator.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not sufficiently and consistently explain the Petitioner's specific endeavor to demonstrate the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”

“the Petitioner's general assertions of working in the health care field do not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential patients to impact the medical field more broadly”

“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the Petitioner's endeavor of providing his services to patients has both substantial merit and national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the record also indicates the Petitioner did not complete his degree in medicine until June 2016”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO declined to consider a newly claimed research assistant position raised for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi, and separately flagged multiple unresolved inconsistencies in the Petitioner's employment history (including working as a 'general doctor' before completing his medical degree) under the Matter of Ho standard, though these credibility issues were noted only in a footnote under prong two and not made dispositive since the appeal was resolved on prong one alone.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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