dismissedMAY022024_07B52032024-05-02 · 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, a pharmaceutical chemist, proposed to create a remote, app-based pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program monitoring women aged 40-60 for 15 days after COVID-19 vaccination to detect and prevent adverse events such as blood clots.
Field: pharmaceutical chemistry / public health monitoring · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
RFE and record supported classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed by AAO.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how she would execute her proposed endeavor.”
“the absence of financial resources to realize the project are relevant to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor can credibly be undertaken and carried out successfully”
“she has not shown that her project stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular locality or to the United States overall.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance is generally not relevant to the national importance of an endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance is generally not relevant to the national importance of an endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan ... or show how this specific endeavor would have a potential prospective impact of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how she would execute her proposed endeavor.”
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
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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote to affirm that NIW grants are discretionary; declines to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 fails, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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