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 psychologist, proposed to open and operate her own private practice providing psychotherapy services.
Field: psychology/psychotherapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, to open a private practice in psychotherapy, did not reach the level of national importance because the petitioner did not show the endeavor would have a substantial economic benefit nor did she show it would have a broad impact in her field, beyond her clientele.”
“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will impact her field broadly in such a way as to be nationally important.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not show the endeavor would have a substantial economic benefit nor did she show it would have a broad impact in her field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“she appears to challenge the reasons for the October 2022 denial ... and resubmits previously submitted evidence”
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 appeal was procedurally unusual: the AAO reviewed only the Director's dismissal of the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not the original I-140 denial itself, but nonetheless addressed and affirmed the underlying Dhanasar prong-one finding because the Petitioner's appeal brief substantively re-argued the original denial without addressing the motion's dismissal. The decision also cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) in a footnote confirming NIW denials are discretionary.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- 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