dismissedAPR162024_03B52032024-04-16 · appeal · 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 proposed to continue working as a nurse assistant in the U.S. healthcare field.
Field: nursing / healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The record does not contain evidence that would support the conclusion that the Petitioner's work as a single nurse assistant would lessen the shortage of workers or improve healthcare in the United States on a scale commensurate with national importance”
“these general, conclusory statements are made without sufficient information or evidence in the record to support them”
“the Petitioner has not explained how her experience or knowledge demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential to impact the U.S. healthcare system or the economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“this claim does not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these claims similarly do not help establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- 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
2,501coded 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 expressly declined to reach the exceptional-ability threshold issue and prongs 2-3, resolving the case entirely on prong 1 national importance, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition that agencies need not make purely advisory findings.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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