dismissedFEB142024_03B52032024-02-14 · 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 operate a home health care and physical support services company serving patients in their homes in Florida, with plans to expand statewide through a franchise network.
Field: home healthcare and physical therapy support services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
“it does not establish her particular proposed endeavor's national importance.”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to a shortage of workers in her field.”
“The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clientele to impact her field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation...to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work...offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not establish her particular proposed endeavor's national importance.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- 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
1,312coded 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 both the second and third Dhanasar prongs and the underlying EB-2 classification determination, resting the dismissal solely on prong 1's national importance failure; cites Poursina v. USCIS for the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication, an unusual circuit-court citation for this type of decision.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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