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 proposed to operate a healthcare-related business in the United States, claiming it would improve healthcare quality and efficiency, transfer knowledge, and generate jobs and economic growth.
Field: healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The AAO's prior appeal decision had already found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disturbed on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Even if these projections are realistic, however, the record does not establish that they are nationally significant or that the business would benefit an economically depressed area.”
“the letters did not support the claim of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as they did not state that the Petitioner's specific venture-by itself-would significantly affect the U.S. healthcare field or economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish that they are nationally significant or that the business would benefit an economically depressed area”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not support the claim of the national importance ... as they did not state that the Petitioner's specific venture-by itself-would significantly affect the U.S. healthcare field or economy”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
This is a second-level motion decision: after the appeal was dismissed and a first motion to reopen/reconsider was denied, the Petitioner filed a further motion; the AAO construed it solely as a motion to reconsider despite the Form I-290B indicating both reopening and reconsideration, because the Petitioner's brief only argued reconsideration grounds.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of O-S-G-
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