dismissedMAR312025_01B52032025-03-31 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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 open and operate a pharmacy providing online health services, medication dispensing, and pharmaceutical consultation to patients across the country, with a focus on vulnerable populations such as the elderly and chronically ill.
Field: pharmacy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show it has national importance”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“the record does not show how the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond those receiving these services”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
“the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country and lacks details as to how the endeavor will show a wider effect”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text
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
- 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
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO agreed the endeavor had substantial merit but found no national importance; recommendation letters were discounted partly because they addressed prong-two-type qualifications rather than prong-one national importance. Case disposed entirely on prong 1; prongs 2 and 3 expressly not reached.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
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