The Petitioner, a clinical nurse specialist, proposed to develop and expand her own home health services company in California, targeting historically underutilized business (HUB) zones, providing home care nursing services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“a shortage in a particular field does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“the record does not sufficiently show how the company will pay salaries and other operational expenses and the business plan lacks sufficient evidence to show adequate investment funds”

“the record lacks evidence of committed funds from the potential investors or contractual commitments from individuals or organizations to work with the proposed company”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her company has significant potential to reach the stated economic impact objectives”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan lacks sufficient evidence to show adequate investment funds, either from the Petitioner or other entities.”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record lacks evidence of committed funds from the potential investors or contractual commitments”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters indicate the individuals are interested in investing in the Petitioner's company, they do not specify an investment amount.”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “the articles and reports failed to establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  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
• 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
• Funding absent · p1 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO rejects the argument that a national nursing shortage establishes national importance, reaffirming that field-level importance is distinct from the specific endeavor's importance.

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 E-M-
• 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