dismissedAUG082024_04B52032024-08-08 · 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 proposed to work as a healthcare administrator for U.S. healthcare facilities and to create a consulting company providing internal audits and administration process improvement services to healthcare providers.
Field: healthcare administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The plan does not indicate, however, that the Petitioner developed any of these methods or would develop other methods, techniques or systems that would have national or even global implications”
“the business plan also does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her company's individual clients to impact the industry more broadly”
“The plan does not indicate that the Petitioner's company would employ any other individuals.”
“The plan also does not provide any financial forecast of the company's profits, payments of taxes, or other contributions to the regional or national economy.”
“these publications address the importance of healthcare, healthcare administration, and national security, but they do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“none of the publications mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her company's individual clients to impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not, however, specify how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond her company's clients to impact the healthcare industry more broadly”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“they do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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 agreed substantial merit was established but found national importance lacking; expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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 L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution