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 sought to establish a mental health clinic in Florida providing affordable outpatient psychological and behavioral health treatments for adults and children.
Field: mental health / outpatient psychological services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Inconsistencies among employment letters, the Form ETA-750B, and a prior non-immigrant visa application regarding dates and positions of claimed qualifying experience; employment letters lacked specific description of duties; lack of clarity as to the Petitioner's claimed specialty (psychology, business, entrepreneurship, healthcare, HR); and unresolved discrepancy between the Petitioner's degree graduation date (2011) and diploma issuance date (2017), which is material because qualifying experience must follow the bachelor's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“it does not demonstrate that this clinic stands to have a broader impact on the field of mental healthcare or on the economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“these assertions relate to the importance of the field in general, rather than to the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
“the plan appears to be nearly identical to the one previously submitted, providing the same job creation and revenue projections”
“the plan does not explain how the creation of 15 jobs over 5 years stands to have an impact on the regional economy at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“did not provide a detailed description of the Petitioner's job duties”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the letter discusses the general hiring and selection process...rather than describing the Petitioner's duties”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not demonstrate that this clinic stands to have a broader impact on the field of mental healthcare”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The credential evaluation does not explain the discrepancy between the graduation date and the diploma issuance date.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the plan appears to be nearly identical to the one previously submitted”
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
The AAO treats the threshold EB-2 classification failure and the Prong 1 national importance failure as independent and alternate bases for dismissal, despite the Director never having reached the threshold issue; AAO exercised de novo review to address it anyway, giving the Petitioner an opportunity to respond on appeal. AAO also explicitly declined to reach Prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to avoid advisory findings.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 eligibility (inconsistent employment evidence, unclear degree date) and separately failed to show the clinic's endeavor had impact beyond its patients/employees, i.e., national importance.
Resolve all employment/credential inconsistencies directly, and show how the specific venture's approach or scale would affect the field/economy nationally, not just cite industry-wide statistics.
moderate
public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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