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 sought to introduce acupotomy (a non-invasive acupuncture-based microsurgery technique) to the United States by conducting clinical research and by building a Korean Medicine and Acupotomy nursing home/clinic that would eventually expand into multiple cities.
Field: acupotomy / Korean medicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability by meeting at least three of the six regulatory criteria, though it noted in a footnote that no foreign academic equivalency evaluation was submitted for the claimed master's/doctoral degrees.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's clinical work would impact the field of healthcare more broadly”
“The business plan the Petitioner submitted in his RFE response suggests that he will focus on serving elderly Korean-Americans”
“he has not provided sufficient details for any clinic he will establish in other cities”
“the Petitioner has not offered an analysis of how and where any cost reduction would be realized.”
“Some letters contain unsubstantiated statements such as that the Petitioner is single-handedly responsible for bringing acupotomy to Korea”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The authors of such statements offered little explanatory detail for their assertions”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient details for any clinic he will establish in other cities”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the record contains no foreign academic equivalency evaluation to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's foreign education.”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found the Petitioner qualified for underlying exceptional-ability classification despite a footnote noting the absence of a foreign degree equivalency evaluation, but dismissed solely on prong-one national importance, declining to reach prongs two and three as unnecessary under Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C-.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- 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