dismissedFEB272025_04B52032025-02-27 · 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 biomedical scientist and clinical pathology technician, planned to establish a company in Alabama offering specialized biomedical analysis, laboratory management services, and advanced training programs to healthcare providers, hospitals, research institutions, and individual patients.

Field: biomedical science / clinical pathology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO agreed, that petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's degree in biomedicine and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner does not specify, however, how her company's collaborations would extend beyond individual entities to impact her field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“The Petitioner does not cite any evidence submitted with the petition or on appeal to support her claim that next-generation sequencing and big data analysis are "cutting-edge practices that will set new standards in the field"”

“The Petitioner does not submit evidence of how many professionals her company would train or that this number would significantly address the shortage of qualified professionals in her field”

“However, simply working in area of national significance does not show that a proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“The Petitioner did not submit evidence of how such profits would be considered significantly high in comparison to other biomedical laboratories or would otherwise have a substantial positive economic effect”

“S-H- does not specify how the Petitioner's company's services and collaborations would extend beyond its customers and partners to impact her field or industry more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“does not indicate how the company's use of such equipment and software would extend beyond her company's clientele to impact her field more broadly”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“does not specify how the Petitioner's company's services and collaborations would extend beyond its customers and partners to impact her field or industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“did not submit evidence of how such profits would be considered significantly high in comparison to other biomedical laboratories”
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
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 methodically rebutted nine separate national-importance arguments (strategic partnerships, technology, infrastructure, STEM shortage, public health alignment, social welfare, economic diversification, health security, job creation) one by one, each rejected for failing to show impact beyond the company's own clientele.

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
INA 203(b)(2)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer