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 Petitioner, a physician, proposed variously to conduct medical research as a 'Physician Researcher,' work as a nurse practitioner/midwife, and finally to operate and manage her own primary care clinic and research center while providing gynecological care.
Field: medicine/obstetrics and gynecology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO vacated Director's finding and concluded Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional via bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience as a physician, per 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not shown that conducting medical research and forming and managing her own company are the same endeavor.”
“she has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of this endeavor”
“these projections are not supported by specific, relevant data and analysis concerning the business' potential growth”
“it is not the overall importance of a particular field or industry that we consider when determining national importance, but the impact of the specific endeavor proposed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by specific, relevant data and analysis concerning the business' potential growth”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- media · discounted
“it is not apparent how these assertions, and the various media articles in the record covering the same or similar topics, relate to the Petitioner's intentions”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Unusual procedural history: this was a second AAO review after a prior remand instructing the Director to consider both EB-2 eligibility and possible impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi. The AAO found the Petitioner had shifted her proposed endeavor through three distinct iterations (physician researcher, nurse practitioner/midwife, then entrepreneur/clinic manager), which it treated as an impermissible material change independently supporting denial, in addition to the prong 1 national importance failure.
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)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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