dismissedJAN092024_04B52032024-01-09 · 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 operate a business, partnered with insurance companies, that would provide pet care services to pets whose owners had died, with the business named as insurance beneficiary.
Field: pet care services / pet insurance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and this was not disputed, that Petitioner established she was an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor, including operating her own business, sufficiently extends beyond her company and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the importance of pet insurance, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her business stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- resume experience · discounted
“those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she does not identify what these contributions are or how they affected the field”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
2,589coded 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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting fully independent analysis, while still framing its own de novo review under prong 1; explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- 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