The Petitioner proposed to establish a veterinary services firm in rural New York providing accessible and affordable care to food animals in underserved areas, using mobile clinics, telemedicine, preventative medicine programs, and mentorship/internship programs to address food safety and public health concerns.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future clients to impact the veterinary industry, the economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly”

“he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”

“he did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers or show how such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers”

“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

“his opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”

“the letters of recommendation add little probative value in establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not provide sufficient explanation or evidentiary support for the bases of his figures”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters of recommendation add little probative value in establishing the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the information contained in the industry reports and articles are probative of the importance of the veterinary industry and professions within the veterinary industry, but the information is not sufficiently probative”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 21 indirect jobs the RIMS II calculation anticipates his company will create, such as the type of jobs those would be”

  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
• 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

Notable

AAO acknowledged that SCOPS conflated prongs 1 and 2 in the RFE but deemed it harmless error after conducting its own de novo review. The Petitioner invoked Buletini v. INS to argue SCOPS failed to consider all evidence in totality; AAO rejected this argument, clarifying USCIS is not required to provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. The Petitioner's use of RIMS II economic multipliers to project indirect job creation was specifically addressed and found insufficient for lack of detail on job types and locations.

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