The Petitioner, a registered nurse with graduate-level education, sought to continue her career as an acute care provider and healthcare manager, with plans to eventually pursue a nursing instructor position.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not suggest that the Petitioner's patient care duties would meet the current demand for registered nurses, address the national registered nurse shortage, or otherwise operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“While we acknowledge her general assertions about how she will substantially benefit the nation through her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has provided insufficient probative evidence or explanation to support them.”

“The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how her proposed endeavor would impact the registered nurse profession or the nation at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“The Director determined in her denial that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong, and we agree with her determination.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“We also agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility under Dhanasar's third prong.”

“as she is otherwise ineligible for a national interest waiver further analysis of her eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

Petitioner raised procedural due-process-style arguments (novel evidentiary requirements imposed, improper standard of proof applied) which the AAO rejected as unsupported by specific examples or analysis; footnote 2 shows AAO addressing prong 3 only in dicta despite prong 1 being dispositive.

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
• INA 203(b)(2)

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