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.
A physician proposed to open a startup primary-care healthcare company in Florida offering subscription and pay-as-you-go services, with plans to eventually franchise, though he gave conflicting descriptions of whether this would be entrepreneurial or hospital-based employment.
Field: medicine / primary healthcare startup · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Initially, the Petitioner provided conflicting descriptions of the proposed endeavor.”
“We note that the business plan is internally inconsistent regarding material details.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“the record does not sufficiently articulate a viable endeavor whose national importance can be assessed.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan is internally inconsistent regarding material details”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“None of the articles the Petitioner references on appeal address either him or the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong—whether a particular, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
Notable
AAO found the initial business plan internally inconsistent (e.g., payroll listing no healthcare providers while promising doctors 60% of revenue, incompatible with projected profit margins), and rejected a substantially revised business plan submitted on appeal as an impermissible post-filing change of material facts under Katigbak/Izummi, ultimately finding the record failed to articulate a stable, assessable endeavor at all.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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