The Petitioner, an audiologist, proposed to provide direct clinical audiology services—diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss, particularly in newborns and children—to U.S. hospitals, clinics, and schools, while also engaging in some research and academic writing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we also conclude that the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“the Petitioner continues to primarily rely on the importance of the audiology field, rather than establishing the broader implications of her specific endeavor”

“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual audiologist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her intended work as an audiologist has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”

“Speculation about research that the Petitioner might undertake in the future does not sufficiently describe a specific proposed endeavor”

“neither of the Petitioner's professional plans provide specific details relating to her prospective research plans or the "scientific discoveries and breakthroughs" she intends to research”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not detail how the Petitioner's experience would impact the audiology field beyond her immediate patients, co-workers, and employers”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the professional plan did not provide detailed information relating to the specific research the Petitioner intended to pursue”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the expert opinion letter... instead relying solely on the importance of the audiology field generally”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the potential opportunities involved providing direct audiology services to patients, rather than research”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure. Petitioner cited two non-precedent AAO decisions involving STEM talent-gap arguments, which the AAO distinguished as non-binding and factually dissimilar. The AAO also noted (in a footnote) that RFE-submitted LinkedIn job solicitations undercut the research-focus claim, though this was flagged as not relevant to prong 1 analysis itself.

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. 103.3(c)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• 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