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 Beneficiary, an assistant professor of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, sought to continue clinical and research work in head and neck cancer surgery, including precision immunotherapy research and establishing a radiofrequency ablation clinic.
Field: otolaryngology-head and neck surgery / head and neck oncology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Beneficiary qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's proposed role as an assistant professor ofotolaryngology and related activities would have a significant impact beyond his employer and patients to create a broader regional or national impact”
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”
“Benefits to a specific employer alone, even an employer with a national footprint, are not sufficiently relevant to the question of whether a person's endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not offer sufficient, detailed, and concrete examples of how the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has the potential for broad and measurable implications”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the record does not provide sufficient information regarding how much time he intends to dedicate to future research activities”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the Beneficiary”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO directly compared the Beneficiary's case to the underlying facts of Dhanasar itself, contrasting the hypersonic propulsion research endeavor with the Beneficiary's clinical/research work to illustrate insufficient specificity and national impact.
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. 103.5
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific proposed endeavor (largely clinical/teaching duties) would have impact extending beyond employer, patients, and local community to national scale.
Distinguish prong-1 evidence from prong-2: submit concrete, corroborated proof that the specific endeavor's prospective impact is broad, measurable, and national—not just credentials or field importance.
moderate
public_health · field_advancement · us_competitiveness
person_focused
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