The Petitioner, a registered nurse, proposed to continue working in the United States in her field, later claiming her endeavor would address nursing shortages and improve healthcare access for underserved and immigrant communities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agreed with the Director's decision that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”

“the Petitioner's new evidence and claims are not relevant to demonstrating the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, but instead are pertinent to whether she is well-positioned to carry out her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong.”

“her new plan for her proposed endeavor may be a material change to what she initially proposed in her petition and, therefore, does not establish her eligibility at the time of filing.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “such new evidence and claims showing her professional qualifications, experience, and progress towards carrying out her endeavor relate to Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “such new evidence and claims showing her professional qualifications, experience, and progress towards carrying out her endeavor relate to Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The Petitioner's motion mainly reiterates claims she made in her initial petition and in her subsequent appeal and motion.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• NEW new evidence misdirected to wrong prong · p1
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

This is a second-round motion decision reviewing a prior motion decision (which itself dismissed combined motions to reopen/reconsider an earlier appeal dismissal). AAO continued to reserve prongs 2 and 3 (citing INS v. Bagamasbad) since prong 1 remained dispositive across all rounds. AAO faulted the Petitioner for directing new evidence (recommendation letters, RN exam eligibility, job offer letter, 25 years experience) at prong 2 issues when only prong 1 was the basis of denial, and for submitting a materially changed/expanded endeavor plan on motion that could not establish eligibility as of the filing date.

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. 103.5
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Coelho

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