The Petitioner proposed to own and operate a wound care/aesthetic and cosmetic nursing clinic in New York, providing skin lesion, peeling, tattoo removal, diabetic foot, and home care nursing treatments, along with teaching dressing-change courses and teleconsultations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor would impact the field of aesthetic and cosmetic nursing more broadly rather than benefiting her patients at the clinic”

“a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver”

“the Petitioner has not explained the bases for the economic projections in the business plan and the economic analysis, nor does the record contain evidence supporting these claims”

“the record does not sufficiently show that this undertaking has broader implications for her field, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in her lectures or training courses”

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that her clinic will employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not explained the bases for the economic projections in the business plan and the economic analysis”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the executive orders may support the importance of public health and access to healthcare, but they do not indicate that the government has an interest in her proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan and economic impact study”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• resume experience · credited

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
• 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

Notable

AAO found threshold EB-2 and prong 1 substantial merit satisfied, but denied solely on national importance sub-element of prong 1, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for economy of adjudication.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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