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 mental health counselor and clinical therapist, sought to grow her career providing psychotherapy and to operate her own Florida-based mental health counseling practice offering individual, group, and consultation/training services.
Field: mental health counseling / psychotherapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the benefits of her proposed endeavor would extend beyond the patients she intended to treat”
“she does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly link her specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth.”
“her job creation projections are not supported by a business plan or details showing their basis or an explanation of how such projections will be realized.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work relative to their own experiences rather than the required broad impact to the mental health sector.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“such abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“her job creation projections are not supported by a business plan or details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications.”
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 expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that adjudicators need not resolve unnecessary issues. It also rejected the Petitioner's reliance on prior non-precedent AAO decisions sustaining similar appeals, noting these do not bind USCIS and are distinguishable on their facts.
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. 103.3(c)
- 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