dismissedSEP242024_02B52032024-09-24 · combined · Texas Service Center
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 chief executive with over 20 years in pharmaceutical sales, planned to start a company offering a digital learning platform providing specialized sales training for pharmaceutical professionals, particularly in ophthalmology-related products.
Field: pharmaceutical sales training / digital education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Prior decision and Director both found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not addressed our finding that he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“the projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“it lacks sufficient information and explanation to show that his specific proposed work offers broader implications in his industry or substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“he has not established that his proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the record does not demonstrate the proposed endeavor stands to impact his field or industry more broadly beyond the clientele enrolled in his company's sales training programs”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“it lacks sufficient information and explanation to show that his specific proposed work offers broader implications in his industry”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has made the same and similar arguments that he made on appeal”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1's national-importance failure was dispositive; motion largely reiterated appeal arguments without addressing specific prior findings, leading to dismissal of both reopen and reconsider motions.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers