dismissedJAN302025_04B52032025-01-30 · 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 physician, proposed to come to the United States to found and serve as CEO of a new healthcare consulting company aimed at helping healthcare businesses optimize human capital, reduce costs, and improve patient care.
Field: healthcare consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance and will dismiss the appeal accordingly.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
“these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner has not explained how his proposed employment metrics and revenue would have impact beyond his business's area of intended operations.”
“he did not establish his specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individuals directly served by his company.”
“The Petitioner also has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce a national labor shortage in the healthcare field as claimed.”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor would have broader implications to the overall field to establish its national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
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
- 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
Director had found first prong's substantial merit and second/third prongs (well-positioned) satisfied, but denied on national importance and benefit-of-waiver grounds; AAO limited its analysis solely to national importance under prong 1 as dispositive, declining to reach the other findings.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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