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 pharmacist, proposed to work part-time as a pharmacy consultant for two pharmacies while developing a telepharmacy consulting business offering medication delivery innovations and training to underserved and rural communities.
Field: pharmacy / telepharmacy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on her Doctor of Pharmacy degree; Director had not made a finding but AAO affirmed eligibility.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Rather, the evidence relates to the telepharmacy industry overall, not to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of starting a consulting business and offering telepharmacy consulting services to two pharmacies.”
“We conclude that the estimated revenue amounts do not rise to the level of a "substantial positive economic effect" that would be commensurate with national importance.”
“the letters do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in detail”
“the evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner has a particular telepharmacy service model or methodology that is replicable”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in detail”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the report does not explain the basis for this estimate nor make a projection as to how many partnerships the project will have”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the estimated revenue amounts do not rise to the level of a "substantial positive economic effect"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the studies and articles in the record do not discuss the Petitioner or her proposed endeavor specifically”
AAO decision text - 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO partially sided with Petitioner, withdrawing the Director's substantial-merit finding under prong 1 but still dismissing based on lack of national importance; also rejected Petitioner's procedural claims regarding inadequate explanation of denial and improper evidentiary standard.
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. 103.5
- Matter of E-M-
- 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