The Petitioner, a veterinary assistant, proposed to open and operate her own veterinary clinic, initially in Texas and later suggesting a possible Florida location.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish what impact the Petitioner's endeavor would have beyond her customer base and employees”

“The evidence also does not establish how a veterinary clinic employing three to four people will generate sufficient business activity to constitute a significant economic benefit”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“There is no documentation in the record indicating that the Petitioner has ever run such a clinic or any other business.”

“the record does not contain such evidence to support the claims made in the Petitioner's business plan”

“The business plan does not indicate a level of progress that would make the Petitioner well-positioned to advance her endeavor.”

“The record does not indicate that she obtained funding, registered her business, or otherwise advanced towards the goal of opening a veterinary clinic at that time.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “it is not apparent that the Petitioner has conducted a level of planning which makes her well-positioned to advance her endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not indicate that the Petitioner is similarly prepared to open or operate her own veterinary clinic”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's work experience letters do not state whether she was employed full-time”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the Brazilian veterinary identification card the Petitioner submitted was expired as of the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on EB-2 classification and Dhanasar prong 1 even though the second-prong failure alone was dispositive, and separately flagged (without deciding) that Texas law bars non-veterinarian ownership of veterinary clinics, an issue not raised by the Director but noted for future filings.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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