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 nurse, proposed to work in the United States providing patient care and training other healthcare professionals, citing her emergency and critical care specialization.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as advanced-degree professional, finding inconsistent and non-independent employer letters failed to establish 5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience; also found Petitioner did not meet at least 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“she has not established how these activities would impact the field of nursing more broadly”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence to establish that her proposed endeavor would place her among the 59.4% of nurses”
“the Petitioner has not explained what her methods, strategies, or approaches are”
“it is insufficient to claim her experience is rare without providing evidence that others do not generally have similar experience”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“these inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the letters”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“we cannot conclude that this document is a license to practice the profession”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his advisory opinion is not probative in this matter”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“she has not established that a lato sensu is a graduate degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this is not necessarily sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor is nationally important”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte, identifying letter-writing inconsistencies (same format/font/errors suggesting non-independent drafting) and conflicting dates/titles between resume and employer letters. Also notable: AAO discussed a Schedule A nursing shortage designation but held it does not establish national importance of the specific endeavor, and flagged nurse-practitioner qualification as more properly a prong-two issue without reaching it.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Poursina v. USCIS
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