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 surgeon in aesthetic medicine, proposed to work in the U.S. providing aesthetic-medicine services (and, per a later business plan, training physicians and offering reconstructive surgery) through a Florida-based company he would serve as scientific director.
Field: aesthetic and regenerative medicine (surgeon) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not addressed the Director's conclusion that any benefits from the Petitioner's endeavor do not appear to extend beyond his immediate patients or potential trainees to result in broader implications to the field.”
“the expert opinion letter did not discuss any broader implications that would be attributable to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, instead relying solely on the importance of the aesthetic medicine field generally”
“the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections.”
“we also agree that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these services may speak to the merit of the endeavor, they do not establish its national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter did not discuss any broader implications that would be attributable to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the business plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections.”
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
Notable
AAO found the expert letter's disregard by the Director harmless error since expert letters are advisory only and not presumptive evidence of eligibility; also noted internal inconsistencies in the business plan regarding service offerings (burn-victim reconstructive surgery omitted from sales forecasts).
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
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