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 psychologist, proposed to form a multidisciplinary team of psychologists, doctors, social workers, lawyers, and educators to provide re-socialization, education, medical, psychological, and legal support to vulnerable homeless youth and young adults aged 15-25 in the United States.
Field: psychology / social work (youth homelessness services) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's company or team would operate on such a large scale”
“did not address the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner to solve the youth homelessness”
“the record does not provide detailed plans for operating her company, i.e., a business plan, or its specific impact”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“did not address the endeavor's specific impact or special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner to solve the youth homelessness”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these two letters alone do not corroborate the specific nature or numerosity of projects”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not provide detailed plans for operating her company, i.e., a business plan, or its specific impact”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
The AAO expressly disagreed with the Director's finding that the Petitioner's RFE response materially changed her endeavor, withdrawing that portion of the decision, but still dismissed the appeal on national importance grounds; the AAO also rejected the Petitioner's 'abuse of discretion' argument regarding the Director's evidentiary weighing, clarifying that preponderance review considers both quantity and quality of evidence.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- 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