dismissedAUG132024_05B52032024-08-13 · 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, a nurse in obstetrics, proposed to start a company providing midwife and doula services, including prenatal, postpartum, and newborn care, with plans to expand across multiple locations.
Field: obstetric nursing / midwife and doula services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's claims of her proposed endeavor's economic impact have not been established through independent and objective evidence.”
“The record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have national or global implications, but its impact will be limited to her direct clients.”
“It is unclear what innovation or new techniques she plans to introduce to the field and the record also does not establish what impact her endeavor will have.”
“Her projected staffing levels are not corroborated and even if they were, they are not high enough to rise to the level of significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not sufficiently describe the scope of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“its national importance claims focus primarily on the Petitioner's experience and the nursing field, and not the specific prospective impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it does not support an assertion of national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
- 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 reserved the underlying EB-2 classification issue despite the Director having found it met, and reserved prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure. The decision notes a circuit split acknowledgment (Flores v. Garland) regarding the discretionary nature of NIW denials.
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 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