The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a surgeon and ENT specialist providing surgical/medical care for head and neck conditions, but later, in response to an RFE, described a materially different endeavor of working as a psychiatrist at a U.S. hospital.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with which to determine whether it has substantial merit because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined”

“it is important to note that the shortage of healthcare providers does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“how one doctor will improve a national shortage or will trigger substantial positive economic impacts has not been explained”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “does not discuss the Petitioner's endeavor, but instead primarily focuses on the Petitioner's past work experience and accomplishments”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “we have insufficient information concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor with which to make a determination”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these articles provide useful background information, they are of limited value in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor remains unclear”

  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

AAO found the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to his proposed endeavor by switching from surgeon/ENT specialist to psychiatrist in response to the RFE, invoking Matter of Izummi/Katigbak; AAO declined to consider evidence tied to the new psychiatrist endeavor and evaluated only the original, undersupported endeavor, finding it too vague/inconsistent to assess national importance.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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