dismissedJAN152025_02B52032025-01-15 · combined · 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 nutrition counseling and consulting services company, providing education and dietary guidance to individual clients.

Field: nutrition/nutritionist consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding of advanced-degree eligibility, concluding the record lacked letters from current/former employers documenting five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not support the Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the broader economic impact of her company”

“a shortage of workers in an occupation does not render the Petitioner's endeavor nationally importance under the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“these articles did not establish a new fact that would overcome our prior decision”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the record did not contain letters from current or former employers encompassing five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the record did not contain letters from current or former employers encompassing five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience”
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

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

This is the Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen/reconsider following an unsuccessful appeal and a prior dismissed combined motion; the AAO found the current filing largely duplicative of the prior brief and reiterated its earlier national-importance and threshold-eligibility findings without new analysis.

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
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer