dismissedDEC052023_02B52032023-12-05 · 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 clinical and counseling psychologist, proposed to continue practicing psychology (using CBT, EMDR, and Filial Therapy techniques) and to operate her own child-focused education/counseling business, M-J-H-E-S-, LLC.
Field: clinical and counseling psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“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 services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients or patients”
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- 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
AAO expressly treats the prong 1 failure as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3; petitioner's occupational-shortage and industry-report evidence were treated as field-level rather than endeavor-specific.
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 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