A Brazilian-trained nurse proposed to own and operate a U.S. startup offering courses, seminars, workshops, and online content to educate elderly Floridians on health and self-care, with plans to expand nationally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her specific services or business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“whether healthcare for elderly adults is important is not the issue here and relates more to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures”

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “we will not recognize a degree from an unaccredited educational institution for purposes of satisfying the educational requirements for EB-2 classification”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “it does not specify the start and end dates of her employment or state whether she worked full or part time”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · credited
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services would have broader implications for our country”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner did not present sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures”

  AAO decision text

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
• 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

The record showed internal inconsistency about whether the Petitioner was claiming advanced-degree or exceptional-ability classification, and a discrepancy between her brief (describing consulting services to clinics) and her business plan (describing direct services to elderly individuals) that the AAO noted was never clarified. The AAO also found an apparent Director error labeling the Petitioner a dental professional (odontology certificate) but deemed it harmless since it did not affect the final decision.

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(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

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