The petitioner, a clinical psychologist, founded a Florida-based company offering AI-assisted mental wellness guidance, expert counseling sessions, and psycho-emotional training in schools, and sought to serve as its business and operations manager.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her undertaking will have implications beyond her patients that rise to the level of national importance”

“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”

“the Petitioner's revenue and stafiing goals fail to demonstrate that her company would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, the region, or the broader U.S. economy”

“the shortage of healthcare professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the Petitioner's plan, however, does not show how these revenue and employment projections, even if plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

“Although the Petitioner states her endeavor is of national importance, she has not sufficiently explained how her endeavor will positively impact the U.S. economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “does not show how these revenue and employment projections, even if plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the shortage of healthcare professionals does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims”

  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

The AAO acknowledged SCOPS made factual errors (misstating the business's location and incorrectly referencing an approved labor certification) and noted an internal inconsistency in SCOPS's findings on the well-positioned prong, but deemed these errors de minimis and reserved prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive.

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.

• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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