dismissedAUG072023_02B52032023-08-07 · 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, an occupational therapist, proposed to own and operate a licensed massage and wellness center clinic in Virginia serving women who are pregnant, planning pregnancy, or in postpartum recovery.
Field: occupational therapy / wellness and massage clinic services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's business would have broader implications for our country rather than limited to the”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the record does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's business would have broader implications for our country rather than limited to the”
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
1,358coded 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 Director had found substantial merit satisfied but national importance not met; AAO affirmed on national importance alone, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3, and explicitly stated each ground was an independent and alternate basis for dismissal (though only prong 1 was actually analyzed).
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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