dismissedAPR172025_04B52032025-04-17 · 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 physician, sought to establish an orthopedics and traumatology clinic in the United States providing musculoskeletal care, including regenerative medicine and non-invasive procedures, particularly for athletes and elderly patients.
Field: orthopedics / musculoskeletal medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner's theory that her endeavor could potentially serve as an exemplary model of healthcare is speculative and unsupported”
“the assessment of national importance is not focused on the importance of a field in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"”
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate these projected employment figures or establish the significance of the data”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate these projected employment figures”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Petitioner raised procedural fairness arguments (claiming the denial was 'capricious and arbitrary' and failed to follow proper procedures), which the AAO addressed by noting its de novo review cured any such deficiency without directly ruling on the procedural claims.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- 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