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 own and operate a nutrition counseling and consulting services company in the Florida area, educating individuals and health care professionals on healthy dietary habits.
Field: clinical nutrition / nutrition counseling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO's underlying decision withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner established advanced-degree-professional status, in part because her employment letters did not conform to 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her company' s services, which include educating individuals, and health care professionals on healthy dietary habits would have broader implications, beyond those individuals and entities, at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner's economic projections "even if credible and plausible" would not "result in benefits to the regional or national economy to the level of" "substantial positive economic effects,"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“did not concern "the Petitioner and how the proposed endeavor may have national importance" but instead, provided generalized information about nutrition”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“these facts were considered by the Director, and in our initial appellate decision”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“employment letters provided did not conform with the requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“generalized and uncorroborated assertions about the proposed endeavor's potential economic effects”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is the third combined motion to reopen and reconsider filed after an initial denial, an appeal dismissal, and a prior combined motion dismissal. A footnote cites INS v. Bagamasbad to explain AAO's reservation of Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 unmet, reflecting a policy of avoiding 'purely advisory findings.'
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of O-S-G-
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