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 proposed to serve as executive director and consultant of her own company providing mental health therapy services (including hypnotherapy) and consulting services to combat human trafficking and child labor.
Field: psychology / mental health counseling and anti-human-trafficking consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO agreed she qualifies as an advanced degree professional via bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not support such a conclusion”
“a shortage of qualified professionals does not establish her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar decision”
“the record does not provide evidentiary support for the stated financial projections to demonstrate how these numbers were calculated”
“the record establishes that the prospective impact of this aspect of her proposed endeavor will be limited to her direct clients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not provide evidentiary support for the stated financial projections to demonstrate how these numbers were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain corroborating evidence to support these claims”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“a shortage of qualified professionals does not establish her proposed endeavor nationally important”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her past experience does not establish national importance under the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
Petitioner raised an APA 'arbitrary and capricious' argument against the RFE/denial, which AAO rejected for lack of specificity; AAO also distinguished past experience (relevant to prong 2) from prospective national importance (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
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated importance of the general field (human trafficking, mental health) with the national importance of her specific, narrowly-scoped endeavor, and failed to substantiate impact projections with credible evidence.
Tie quantitative impact claims to a specific, verifiable methodology and show how the endeavor itself—not the general field—achieves national-scale effects.
vague
public_health · government_interest · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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