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 proposed to establish health and wellness centers focused on special needs children and adolescents, addressing childhood obesity and related health issues, beginning in Florida and later expanding to Massachusetts and Georgia.
Field: adapted physical education / health and wellness · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional via a foreign physical education degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience in the specialty.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not established how providing his health and wellness services stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the national shortage of physical education professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.”
“job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized.”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the area where his company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in that area.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“these documents describe the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as his progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, which relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these documents describe the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as his progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, which relate to the second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- contract revenue · discounted
“it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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
Notable
The AAO devoted substantial analysis to the Petitioner's HUBZone argument, including a footnote questioning whether the Petitioner — as a non-U.S. citizen and non-qualifying entity — would even be eligible to participate in the SBA HUBZone program, effectively raising an eligibility issue the Petitioner had not addressed. SCOPS had found prong 2 satisfied without analysis; the AAO reserved prong 2 and prong 3 entirely. The decision also references the Healthy People 2030 and White House National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health as federal initiatives the Petitioner invoked but found insufficient to establish national importance.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact would extend beyond his clients/business to a level of national scale, relying instead on field importance, unsubstantiated shortage claims, and unproven HUBZone/economic projections.
Support projected job creation, economic effects, or scale claims with corroborated, endeavor-specific evidence showing broader national or regional impact, not personal credentials or general field importance.
moderate
economic_job_creation · public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement
person_focused
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