The Petitioner, an occupational therapist, proposed to own and operate a women's wellness clinic (small business) in Virginia.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the forecasts outlined in the Petitioner's business plan did not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor to open a wellness clinic would nationally impact the healthcare industry or benefit the regional or national economy.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the forecasts outlined in the Petitioner's business plan did not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “this documentation does not demonstrate new facts showing that she meets the "national importance" requirement of Dhanasar's first prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner's discussions of the healthcare industry and opportunities for new small businesses in Virginia do not refute or overcome the conclusions in our previous decision.”

  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

Notable

This is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal (ID# 28020213, Aug. 7, 2023), which itself followed a Director denial. The AAO's review was limited to whether the motion presented new facts/law error regarding its prior decision, not a fresh prong analysis; p2 and p3 were never reached in either decision under Bagamasbad/L-A-C- reasoning.

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. 103.5
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Coelho
• 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