dismissedJUL172024_10B52032024-07-17 · 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 veterinarian trained in Brazil, proposed to create and manage a veterinary clinic in Texas providing services to pet owners, farmers, breeders, and horse owners.
Field: veterinary medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner and J-D-G- do not specify how the Petitioner's clinic would contribute to the veterinary or equine industries beyond the individual clients it would serve.”
“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 Petitioner's clinic's employment of one to five individuals over the course of five years does not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers, as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“The Petitioner did not submit evidence that these profits are significantly higher than those of other veterinary clinics or that the projected profits would otherwise have a substantial positive economic effect”
“the Petitioner has not established that the impact of her clinic would extend beyond its clientele to impact the veterinary field more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“is not entirely consistent with other relevant evidence in the record”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not demonstrate significant potential to employ U.S. workers, as contemplated in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
- contract revenue · discounted
“did not submit evidence that these profits are significantly higher than those of other veterinary clinics”
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
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
AAO reserved both the underlying EB-2 classification eligibility and prongs 2-3 of Dhanasar, resting dismissal solely on national importance; notes inconsistency between beneficiary's own definitive statement and supporting expert letter regarding proposed teaching/lecturing activities.
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-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)
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