dismissedAUG122024_04B52032024-08-12 · appeal · Nebraska 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 nutritionist with a background in clinical pediatric care, proposed to continue her nutrition career in the U.S., combating nutrition misinformation and improving health outcomes by working with clients, medical professionals, clinics, schools, and community organizations.
Field: nutrition · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor did not stand to sufficiently "extend beyond her future employer(s) and patients to impact the nutrition and healthcare field or U.S. economy more broadly."”
“The Petitioner's economic arguments, namely that her work will reduce healthcare costs and increase productivity, are not accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that her endeavor would provide.”
“she has not shown that her endeavor stands to improve human knowledge, further research outcomes, or contribute to scientific advancements.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to her background, education, and experience in her field.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“These or similar factors are not present in 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 expressly reserved opinion on prongs two and three under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, dismissing solely on prong one national importance grounds; footnote cites Flores v. Garland on the discretionary nature of NIW review.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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