dismissedAUG312023_08B52032023-08-31 · 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 pharmacist, initially proposed to work in community clinics treating patients with newly acquired comorbidities, focusing on cost-effective and preventive care; in response to the RFE she instead asserted she would open and operate her own pharmaceutical business in Florida.
Field: pharmacy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating her own business.”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular pharmaceutical services in clinics rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field.”
“the alleged shortage of an occupation does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective employer(s)”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating her own business”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific employment services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective employer(s)”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
The Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response, shifting from working as a pharmacist in community clinics to opening her own pharmaceutical business; the AAO invoked Matter of Izummi and Matter of Bardouille to refuse consideration of the new business endeavor, evaluating national importance only under the original, vaguer 'community clinics' proposal.
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 Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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