The Petitioner, a critical care nurse, initially proposed to work as a nurse providing patient care; after the RFE she reframed her endeavor as founding and serving as CEO of a healthcare services and medical devices company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Director concluded that the Petitioner's plan to establish a health care company, submitted in response to the RFE, constituted a material change to the proposed endeavor and, as such, would not be considered.”

“the plan does not provide a credible methodology for its assumed expenses, projected income, or staffing needs.”

“the Petitioner has not established that the creation of 38 jobs in five years would have a substantial positive economic effect commensurate with national importance.”

“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 proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of nurses or increase access to healthcare in the United States on a scale commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not provide a credible methodology for its assumed expenses, projected income, or staffing needs.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “evidence of the Petitioner's education, skills, and expertise, including work experience, generally relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this evidence relates to the substantial merit of the endeavor, which the Director agreed was established, and does not establish its prospective potential impact.”

  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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO treated the Petitioner's RFE-stage pivot from employed nurse to CEO of a newly formed healthcare company as a material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak and declined to weigh post-filing business formation/plan documents as establishing eligibility at filing, though it nonetheless reviewed the business plan in the alternative and still found it insufficient.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of R-A-M-
• 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