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 planned to start a nutrition counseling and consulting company in Florida, working with individual clients, hospitals, and schools to promote healthy dietary habits.
Field: nutrition · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's certification did not qualify as an advanced degree, and submitted employer letters did not encompass five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience nor meet regulatory content requirements (name, address, title, duty description).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence corroborating these employment figures and general assertions”
“a shortage of worker occupations or skills does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“while we do not question the importance of the nutrition industry, we focus on the specific endeavor the petitioner proposed to undertake”
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor to provide her professional services to individual clients within a STEM profession aims to advance STEM technologies and research”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence corroborating these employment figures and general assertions”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted letters from her employers that encompasses a total of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate she holds a qualifying degree above a bachelor's degree that would constitute an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted employee letters do not include the name, address, and title of the writer of the letter or a specific description of the duties performed”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmits her business plan for [company] which reflects intentions to employ 17 individuals by its fifth year”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on both the underlying advanced-degree classification and the second Dhanasar prong, finding neither supported by the record, though it treated the first-prong failure (and separately the threshold EB-2 failure) as independently dispositive.
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 proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution