The Petitioner, a physician, proposed to promote breastfeeding by educating and training mothers, conducting research and publishing/presenting on breastfeeding, and establishing a nonprofit organization devoted to this goal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these documents primarily describe the importance of breastfeeding in general and the problem of physician shortages in the United States, rather than establishing the importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor"”

“the business plan does not provide specific estimates for potential job creation or other financial projections”

“Without further evidence as to the extent of research that the proposed endeavor would involve...the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan does not provide specific estimates for potential job creation or other financial projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “primarily describe the importance of breastfeeding in general...rather than establishing the importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “relate to the field in general and not to the Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor”

  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

Notable

AAO applies a waiver doctrine, finding that the Petitioner failed to preserve or adequately raise the research-based national importance argument on appeal, then addresses it anyway in a footnote and rejects it on the merits as an alternative holding.

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
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of O-R-E-
• Matter of R-A-M-
• 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