The Petitioner, an audiologist and speech-language pathologist, proposed to continue working in her field in the U.S., initially providing clinical services to hospitals and clinics, and later, per an updated statement, opening an outpatient audiology treatment center focused on dysphasia/swallowing disorders.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of providing audiology and speech pathology services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her potential patients”

“such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how providing her services would somehow influence those figures”

“the Petitioner did not show that her company's projected future staffing levels of 6 - 7 positions or revenues would provide substantial economic benefits”

“she has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not make this claim at initial filing... Eligibility must be established at the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record contains evidence regarding general information relating to audiologists, speech therapists, and speech-language pathologists”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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

Notable

AAO applied the eligibility-at-time-of-filing doctrine to disregard the business plan/company endeavor introduced only in RFE response, noting a petition cannot be approved based on facts arising after filing; also noted Dhanasar's carve-out for research/pure science endeavors not needing economic translation, finding it inapplicable here.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Bardouille
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
• The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
• The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
• The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
• The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his