dismissedAPR292025_02B52032025-04-29 · appeal

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 healthcare consulting professional, proposed to establish and lead a company providing community health consulting, training veterans to address healthcare shortages, and conducting rural health assessments to improve preventive health practices in underserved rural U.S. areas.

Field: healthcare consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's execution of that proposed endeavor.”

“The Petitioner's evidence does not help her carry her burden of production and persuasion because it does not sufficiently relate to the proposed endeavor's national importance”

“Overall, the Petitioner's stated services ... mainly confer a benefit on a narrow segment of entities that seek out those services.”

“The record does not support the Petitioner's claim of implications rising to a level of national importance ... from a plan to employ 20 individuals”

“The author's opinion mainly focuses only on the Petitioner's ability and achievement when rendering the opinion.”

“But the Petitioner has not identified how many dollars are being spent on healthcare by and through her specific endeavor so that the economic output can be quantified”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not refer to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor... describe the Petitioner's competent acquittal of her assigned job duties”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“it does not sufficiently show how those services extend beyond the 'potential clients' it identifies”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“educational credentials and professional certificates earned from participation in seminars ... are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“professional certificates earned from participation in seminars or continuing professional education exercises are not sufficient”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“This evidence supported the overall merit of the Petitioner's proposed field of endeavor... but does not adequately describe how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor demonstrates it has national or even global implications”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

resume experience · ignored

Where this case turned

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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

2,501coded 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 noted the petitioner also failed to submit required ETA-750B/9089 employee-specific labor certification portions, but resolved the case entirely on prong 1 without reaching that or prongs 2/3. AAO explicitly stated the expert letter's focus on petitioner's ability/achievement was misplaced under prong 1, suggesting that evidence would better support prong 2 (footnote 4).

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
Matter of Caron Int'l
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of Y-B-
Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer