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 intended to operate her own consulting company offering AI-driven strategic consulting, data management, and training services to healthcare organizations to improve patient care and operational efficiency.
Field: AI/data analytics consulting for healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found and AAO did not dispute that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“The articles do not address the Petitioner or her specific proposed endeavor.”
“she only identifies ways in which her work directly impact her employer, she does not explain how this same work... could result in broader implications to the industry”
“the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her proposed endeavor would result in the substantial positive economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan provides little explanation and objective basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“does not constitute a commitment to invest”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The articles do not address the Petitioner or her specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor will foster progress in STEM technologies or result in broader implications to her field”
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
- 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
AAO explicitly withdrew two of the Director's specific statements (requiring 'undoubtedly' benefit and requiring impetus for progress in field) as misstatements of the Dhanasar standard, but still found national importance not established and declined to remand. AAO also engaged in a harmless-error/prejudice analysis (citing Shinseki, Molina-Martinez, Aguilar) regarding the Director's failure to discuss every piece of evidence, an unusual administrative-law framing for an NIW decision.
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(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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