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, a pharmacist and consultant, proposed to create a 'counseling-type information platform' to combat prescription medication misuse and addiction, which would evolve into a multidisciplinary and holistic care team using her pharmaceutical and business background.
Field: pharmacy / healthcare consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification given her advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individual users of her platform”
“The projections in this business plan are unsupported, and it is unclear how the proposed growth will occur.”
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not mentioned in that letter”
“our analysis in prong one must focus on the impact of the proposed endeavor, rather than the characteristics of the petitioner or the importance of the field as a whole”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The projections in this business plan are unsupported, and it is unclear how the proposed growth will occur.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not mentioned in that letter”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- 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
Notable
The AAO corrects the Petitioner's misunderstanding that Dhanasar requires a 'national impact' standard, clarifying the correct terms are 'national importance.' The conclusion inexplicably refers to the Petitioner as 'he' despite consistent 'she' usage throughout, an apparent drafting error.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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