The petitioner sought to open a healthcare consultancy in Texas providing consulting, training, research, and tailored diagnosis/treatment services in pediatric pulmonology.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“A shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision.”

“the record must nevertheless establish how "the specific endeavor that the [Petitioner] proposes to undertake" may have "national or even global implications within a particular field”

“the record does not detail how much of the company's time will be spent on research in order for us to evaluate the scope of the proposed research.”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her intended work as the CEO of a healthcare consultancy has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

“the record establishes that the impact of the remainder of the Petitioner's services is limited to the company's direct clients.”

“the business plan states that the Petitioner "will operate in Texas," but no specific areas of Texas are identified in order to evaluate if her company will be in a designated HPSA”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not detail how much of the company's time will be spent on research”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “generally reiterates the claims the Petitioner makes regarding the goal of her research”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the letters do not meet the requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and therefore do not establish qualifying experience”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the record does not contain sufficient evidence, such as an academic evaluation, to support a determination that the foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “A shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under the Dhanasar decision.”

  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

Notable

AAO flagged an internal inconsistency: petitioner submitted a job offer letter for the position of 'Pediatric Pulmonologist' (requiring a doctorate) while claiming her endeavor was to be CEO/consultant, undermining both the EB-2 threshold claim and the endeavor description; AAO reserved the threshold EB-2 issue and decided the case entirely on prong 1 national importance.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 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