dismissedMAY172024_02B52032024-05-17 · 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 dietitian and nutritionist, sought to become licensed and operate her own nutrition and wellness clinic providing treatment for obesity, eating disorders, and related physical/mental ailments.
Field: clinical nutrition/dietetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend its benefits beyond her immediate patients and customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States.”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economies... would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“citing the Petitioner's company's potential for growth and success in the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“material to Dhanasar's second prong... but immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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
- 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