dismissedAUG062024_05B52032024-08-06 · 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 and healthcare management professional, proposed to open and operate a healthcare company in Connecticut offering affordable outpatient and home health services to the Latino community, including the uninsured and undocumented, focused on chronic disease prevention.
Field: healthcare management / medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional based on foreign medical degree equivalency plus graduate study in healthcare management.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
“the record does not establish what innovative solutions the Petitioner is proposing aside from opening and operating a health care company”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects”
“it only establishes a benefit to her prospective clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan discusses how the Petitioner plans to operate her business, providing health care services to Latino clients”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the articles discuss the U.S. government's interest in industries related to the proposed endeavor... working in the industry is insufficient”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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 expressly rejects Petitioner's argument that the U.S. worker employment factor is merely optional, and cites Flores v. Garland regarding the discretionary nature of NIW decisions.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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