The Petitioner proposed to work in veterinary medicine, initially describing herself as a practicing veterinarian offering diagnostic imaging, ultrasound, surgical, and consulting services, but later reframing the endeavor as a trainer/systems designer implementing a replicable mobile veterinary diagnostic imaging methodology for underserved areas.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record contains unresolved, inconsistent statements on whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will be as a veterinarian or as a "training and systems designer" in the veterinary field”

“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor without establishing the impact of her proposed endeavor on these "sector-wide problems."”

“a shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual veterinarian nationally important under the Dhanasar decision”

“the record does not support these assertions with corroborating evidence”

“the record only establishes that the Petitioner will deploy her proposed endeavor in Florida and does not specify any particular areas”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “this letter is based on the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor as a veterinarian and is therefore inconsistent with the record as a whole”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not directly address the Petitioner's professional plan, her methodology, or the broader implications of her specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

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
• 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 found the record internally inconsistent as to the actual nature of the endeavor: the Petitioner shifted from describing herself as a practicing veterinarian to a 'training and systems designer' in response to the RFE, and the AAO treated this as two different endeavors requiring separate evidence, undermining the national importance analysis.

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. 103.5
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Ho

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