The Petitioner, a nutritionist with over 10 years of experience, proposed to continue work in clinical nutrition, school and hospital meal preparation, weight-loss/bariatric care, and related research and consultancy in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner's professional plan provides generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”

“occupational deficiencies are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process and are not a basis for national importance”

“this statement is not supported by independent, objective evidence.”

“we conclude that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“her opinion is general in nature, concluding that, because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to be a nutritionist, it has national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the authors do not explain how these accomplishments translate to a prospective impact on nutrition in the United States”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the reports do not specifically discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored
• certification membership · ignored

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO explicitly withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (conceding merit) but still found no national importance; included a footnote stating that even if the remaining two prongs had been reached, the appeal would still have been dismissed based on the Director's unrebutted findings and lack of new evidence on appeal.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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