dismissedAPR072025_01B52032025-04-07 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 proposed to operate a chain of pharmacies, beginning in Virginia and expanding to Maryland, offering low-cost prescription medicines to underserved communities while serving as the company's general manager and pharmacy chief.
Field: pharmacy/retail pharmacy business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company ... and its clientele to impact the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the record does not establish the actual location where any of the Petitioner's pharmacy stores would operate, which precludes a determination of whether the proposed endeavor would operate in an economically depressed area”
“the plan does not clarify the number of employees in a given year who would have any particular job title, what the duties of the workers in those positions would be”
“the industry reports and articles in the record...do not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the proposed endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not clarify the number of employees in a given year who would have any particular job title”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, and how the proposed endeavor may have the type of broader implications indicative of national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not inform how the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have broader implications indicative of national importance”
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
- 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
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO used publicly available state corporate registry and SBA HUBZone mapping tools to contradict the Petitioner's factual assertion that her business was located in a HUBZone, finding the discrepancy cast doubt on the veracity of her statements generally, citing Matter of Ho on credibility spillover.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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