Healthcare: rural health consulting and training
The AAO dismissed the appeal after concluding that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong, and reserved the remaining prongs.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
The AAO reviewed a SCOPS denial of an EB-2 national interest waiver petition filed by the chief executive of a healthcare consulting firm. SCOPS had treated the petitioner as holding an advanced degree and the endeavor as having substantial merit, and the AAO agreed on merit. Its analysis turned on national importance: the AAO said the first prong looks at the specific endeavor, not the petitioner's past record or the importance of rural healthcare in general. Letters, a professional plan and an expert opinion did not show effects beyond the clients served, so the appeal was dismissed with the later prongs reserved.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | that the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not reached | |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- SCOPS correctly found substantial merit, but the AAO focused on whether the specific endeavor, rather than the importance of the field, has national or global implications, and found the evidence insufficient on that point.
- Recommendation letters and credentials described the Petitioner's past performance and qualifications, which do not show the proposed endeavor's national importance and fit better under the second prong.
- The professional plan did not show how the services would extend beyond the clients who engage her, and a plan to employ 20 people within three years, with no economically depressed area identified, did not show national-level economic effects.
- The expert opinion letter mainly addressed the Petitioner's ability and the general importance of the industry and did not explain the endeavor's prospective impact.
- Because the first prong was not met, the AAO reserved the second and third prongs.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
- Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023)
- Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998)
- Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary