dismissedAPR172024_02B52032024-04-17 · 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, a pharmacist with 20 years of experience, sought to start and lead a Florida-based company producing parenteral nutrition products for patients unable to meet metabolic needs through normal digestion.

Field: pharmacy / parenteral nutrition products · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has not been clearly defined and described”

“The record, however, does not sufficiently detail the basis for the company's financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“The economic benefits that the Petitioner claimed depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her provision of nutritional products and the claimed economic results.”

“merely working in the pharmaceutical field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“she does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond clients that she will serve”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the record lacks evidence showing that earning revenue of approximately $2.5 million and creation of 27 jobs by year five rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“these documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“only address her past accomplishments working in the pharmaceutical field and do not address the national importance of her endeavor's potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

degree · ignored

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
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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

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 deemed a substantial-merit argument waived because the Petitioner mischaracterized the Director's finding on appeal ('erroneously states on appeal that the Director found that the endeavor has substantial merit and does not contest the Director's finding to the contrary'). AAO expressly reserved reaching prongs 2 and 3, and declined to remand for threshold EB-2 determination since prong 1 was dispositive.

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 E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of O-R-E-
Matter of R-A-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer