dismissedJUL262023_01B52032023-07-26 · 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 doctor, proposed to become an entrepreneur in the U.S., offering consultancy services and education on the therapeutic use of CBD (cannabidiol) in healthcare, including related research on the endocannabinoid system.
Field: healthcare/CBD consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The petitioner's description of that work, however, is ambiguous”
“The impact of a venture cannot be evaluated without, for example, information concerning how it will be fonded, where the business will operate, the Petitioner's specific job duties, or a set of definitive goals for the venture.”
“It is not clear from the evidence how the Petitioner's proposed work as a consultant would impact the field of healthcare, or any subcategory within the field, at a national level.”
“These letters do not expound on the Petitioner's endeavor itself or provide probative evidence of how her individual consultancy business will have a positive and significant impact regionally or nationally.”
“her unsupported statements are insufficient to meet her burden of proof”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the lack of a detailed business plan or model for [the Petitioner's] proposed consulting services”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not expound on the Petitioner's endeavor itself or provide probative evidence of how her individual consultancy business will have a positive and significant impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this documentation does not clarify or establish the importance of the Petitioner's individual endeavor as a consultant”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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
Petitioner argued (citing Buletini) that the Director's failure to discuss all evidence constituted an abuse of discretion; AAO implicitly rejected this by conducting its own de novo review. Petitioner also argued a business plan should be assessed under prong 2 rather than prong 1; AAO explicitly disagreed, holding business plan detail is probative of national importance under prong 1.
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
- Buletini v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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