Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physician, proposed to establish and manage a sports medicine services business with clinics in Florida, New Jersey, and California offering multi-disciplinary medical, counseling, physical therapy, and acupuncture services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's sports medicine services business would impact the healthcare field more broadly.”

“The Petitioner's general claims that her sports medicine services business will benefit the U.S. economy and enhance healthcare has not been established through independent and objective evidence.”

“However, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized.”

“merely working in the healthcare field as a medical and health services manager or starting a sports medicine services business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

“Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 43 direct jobs ... rises to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the opinion does not focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor and it having a potential prospective impact on the U.S. economy”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “Her academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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

Notable

The AAO noted the appeal brief contained copy-paste errors referencing unrelated business ventures ('a shoe company for disabled Americans' and 'plastic surgeons ... dental care issues') not associated with the Petitioner's actual proposed endeavor, suggesting boilerplate brief drafting.

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)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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