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 self-employed practitioner of oriental medicine in South Korea, sought to continue practicing oriental medicine (pain treatment, obesity treatment, dermatology, gynecological and internal medicine) in the United States.
Field: oriental medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish, through business records and reference letters, that he obtained at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience through self-employment at his clinic, due to inconsistencies regarding the clinic's location and lack of evidence substantiating its ongoing operations.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the healthcare industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“We conclude that the Petitioner's reliance on these letters is misplaced.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not substantiate that the Petitioner obtained at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“he has not explained how his assets demonstrate that he has the requisite experience”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO relied on two independent, alternate grounds for dismissal: failure to establish the advanced-degree-equivalent experience threshold (due to unresolved inconsistencies about the clinic's location and operations, echoing Matter of Ho doubt-casting principles), and waiver plus independent failure of Dhanasar prong 1's national importance requirement. The AAO also referenced the Petitioner's signed acknowledgment on Form I-140 permitting USCIS to verify evidence via public records/audits, which triggered the initial RFE.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- 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