dismissedMAY152024_03B52032024-05-15 · 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 physician, proposed to open a primary care clinic and research institute in the United States, which would also conduct clinical trials in women's health and family medicine.
Field: primary care medicine / women's health research · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's plans to open a primary care clinic similarly lack a broad impact on the medical field, as it would serve only individual patients.”
“However, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections.”
“The record does not illustrate how creating 21 jobs and generating $900,727 in taxes over five years, as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”
“The record does not contain sufficient detail to establish that this function would be on par with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“all the letters were dated after the filing of the petition”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“speak to the Petitioner's education and work history”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“speak to the Petitioner's education and work history”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles submitted concern primary care in the U.S., but they do not specifically address her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the incorporation documentation shows that the Petitioner has registered the business with the state and federal governments”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,358coded 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
The AAO rejected investor and patient intent letters submitted in response to an RFE because they were dated after the petition's filing date, citing the rule that eligibility must be established as of filing (8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12)). The AAO also declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, 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.
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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