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 sought to found a nutritional consulting company offering personalized nutrition assessments, education, government program planning, and related services aimed at improving diets and health outcomes.
Field: nutrition/nutritional consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of exceptional ability but found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's-equivalent degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her company's services rather than the national importance of the field of nutrition”
“she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“she does not sufficiently detail the basis for these staffing projections, nor does she adequately explain how the staffing projections will be realized”
“the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond potential customers, or schools or health offices to impact the nutrition and healthcare field or U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“lacked relevance because it discusses the importance of the Petitioner's field and occupation, rather than the national importance of her endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“she does not sufficiently detail the basis for these staffing projections, nor does she adequately explain how the staffing projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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 withdrew the Director's exceptional-ability finding sua sponte and substituted advanced-degree-professional classification, yet still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1 national importance; the expert opinion letter was found to describe human resources/corporate training services inconsistent with the Petitioner's actual endeavor.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor (not the nutrition field generally) had national-level prospective impact; job creation and economic claims lacked evidentiary support.
Tie concrete, well-supported impact data (jobs, savings, reach) directly to the specific proposed endeavor itself, not to the general importance of the field or petitioner's credentials.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · stem_positive_factor · government_interest
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers