The Beneficiary worked as a group facilitator and case manager for a mental health organization, providing counseling and case management services to individual clients and their families dealing with substance use disorders.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the benefit [provided by the Beneficiary as a group facilitator and case manager] to each individual client/member [of the petitioning mental health organization] does not represent a broad enhancement to societal welfare based on the evidence submitted.”

“the record does not establish whether, beyond the benefits provided to the clients and their family members, the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

“The research project proposal submitted for the first time on appeal, dated after the petition filing date, presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing and, therefore, may not establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “the record does not establish whether... the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “do not establish whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or... possible substantial positive economic effects”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “The letters do not address the first and third Dhanasar prongs, which are the issues on appeal.”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing and, therefore, may not establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• NEW post filing evidence rejected · p1
• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

The Petitioner made an internally contradictory economic argument, asserting that the Beneficiary's services both help the economy (by returning workers to productivity) and burden taxpayers (via treatment costs), which the AAO found unhelpful either way. The AAO also rejected a research project proposal and other evidence submitted for the first time on appeal because it postdated the filing date and even the Director's motion decision, citing Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291

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