dismissedJAN032024_04B52032024-01-03 · 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 sought to found and manage an at-home healthcare services company offering general physician, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nutritional, psychology, and speech-language pathology services, serving in a managerial capacity rather than providing therapy herself.
Field: speech therapy and at-home healthcare services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not sufficiently explained what those innovations are”
“The Petitioner has not, however, provided any support or basis for the above projections.”
“a shortage of healthcare workers is insufficient, by itself, to establish the national importance of her endeavor”
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how her endeavor will be of national importance”
“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 Petitioner has not, however, provided any support or basis for the above projections.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“such expertise would be relevant to our analysis under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how her endeavor will be of national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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
Petitioner raised a due-process-style argument that the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard and 'novel substantive and evidentiary requirements,' which AAO rejected for lack of specificity, reaffirming preponderance of the evidence as the governing standard.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 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