dismissedJUL012024_01B52032024-07-01 · 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 nutritionist, proposed to create a company operating a telehealth network platform connecting patients to nutritional professionals for treatment of obesity, eating disorders, and other conditions, with plans to publish educational content, support research, and expand nationally through franchising.
Field: nutrition/telehealth · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“The business plan does not indicate, and the Petitioner did not submit other evidence showing that the employment of eight to 34 people would have a significant economic effect”
“While they praise the Petitioner's accomplishments as a nutritionist, Ms. and Ms. do not mention her proposed endeavor.”
“Dr. discusses the impacts of nutritional clinics in general but does not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not indicate...that the employment of eight to 34 people would have a significant economic effect”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not mention her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- media · discounted
“none of the documents mention the Petitioner or address her specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit evidence of these federal initiatives and how her proposed endeavor would impact them.”
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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 emphasized that citing general importance of a field/occupation (via O-Net, Occupational Outlook Handbook, federal health initiatives like Healthy People 2030) is insufficient; endeavor-specific evidence is required. Prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.
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