The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to develop a wellness-products and online health-consultation business in the United States, eventually opening a compounding pharmacy in Florida in her company's fourth year of operation.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Apart from these vague assertions by the Petitioner, the record does not contain evidence to substantiate that her business would grow businesses within the pharmaceutical industry or in any other healthcare field.”

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient objective support for these projections, including probative evidence, to demonstrate that it is likely her company would have a positive national economic impact”

“this reasoning is speculative and not based on any objective evidence related to her proposed endeavor, the outcomes of which she has not specifically defined.”

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

“It is not clear how the Petitioner's operation of a single compounding pharmacy and business providing health consultation services would address such a nationwide demand.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “an individual's qualifications and experience generally apply not to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the information in the business plan is not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how her company would have a prospective national impact”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “These assertions, however, do not clarify how the Petitioner's company... would nationally impact a claimed multi-billion-dollar industry.”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide sufficient objective support for these projections, including probative evidence”

  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
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO noted the appeal itself failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact per 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), calling this 'alone... grounds for dismissal,' but nevertheless proceeded to analyze the merits of prong one.

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.

• 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