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 child development psychologist, sought to continue clinical work with clients and students in the field of child development psychology.
Field: child development psychology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Rather than address the Director's conclusions on appeal, the Petitioner generally discusses the importance of her field and provides conclusory statements that her proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and students to impact the field of child development psychology more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
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
Notable
AAO expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of P. Singh/Burbano rather than conducting independent analysis, then supplemented with brief comments. Petitioner did not substantively engage the Director's reasoning on appeal, instead reiterating general field-importance arguments.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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