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 pharmacist, proposed to operate a telepharmacy consulting service providing remote medication delivery and pharmaceutical education, particularly to underserved communities.
Field: pharmacy / telepharmacy consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional based on her Doctor of Pharmacy degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the studies and articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically”
“the report did not adequately explain the basis for the anticipated revenue figures it contained”
“the letters did not discuss the Petitioner's project or offer a persuasive explanation for how the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications”
“the record lacks evidence corroborating the claims made in the letters”
“does not estimate an anticipated number of patients that may be reached, telepharmacy services that may be implemented, pharmacists that may be trained”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not discuss the Petitioner's project or offer a persuasive explanation for how the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the report did not adequately explain the basis for the anticipated revenue figures it contained nor establish...national importance”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the studies and articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“Our prior decision does not mention the Petitioner's resume.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that we erroneously misconstrued the proposed endeavor or that the unsubstantiated error resulted in our unfavorable decision.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
This is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appeal decision in which threshold EB-2 eligibility and substantial merit of the endeavor had already been resolved in the Petitioner's favor; only the national importance prong (p1) remained at issue and was found dispositive both in the prior decision and again on this motion. The Petitioner's motion arguments (e.g., that the decision was 'volatile' or an 'abuse of discretion') were characterized by AAO as vague disagreement rather than legal or factual error.
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 L-A-C-
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