The Petitioner sought to establish a company offering a mobile platform and consulting services to help students overcome mental health challenges, extending support to school staff and parents through partnerships with youth service systems and public agencies.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance because they only highlight that the endeavor's impact is to the individual client or companies that hire the Petitioner”

“her opinion is largely conclusory and does not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work would produce such nationally important impacts”

“the national shortage of mental health professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”

“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits”

“evidence showing the national importance of the industry or profession, in general, is insufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “the evidence does not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance because they only highlight... individual client”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited
• other · discounted

  “the information is not sufficiently probative to establish that her specific proposed endeavor is of national importance”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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 expressly rejects the Petitioner's argument that SCOPS applied a heightened evidentiary standard, reaffirming the preponderance standard under Chawathe; also notes portions of one expert letter were illegible due to OCR/scan quality, and cites a Fifth Circuit case (Flores v. Garland) on the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication.

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 Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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