dismissedDEC062023_03B52032023-12-06 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Beneficiary, a healthcare management specialist working at a hospice, sought to research psychosomatic triggers in hospice patients and develop management systems, staff guidelines, and scheduling programs to improve hospice care and propose a national care program.
Field: hospice/palliative care management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of the Beneficiary's specific, proposed endeavor rather than the importance of hospice and related care”
“occupational shortages do not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how the Beneficiary's program concepts stand to sufficiently extend beyond the limited patients of selected doctors”
“Without credible evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Beneficiary's future work”
“the letter makes vague, general statements about hospice, palliative care, and treatment relating to national or global implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not articulate how the Beneficiary's specific work would affect any of these governmental agencies, programs, or initiatives”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Beneficiary's resume does not list any scholarly article publications, conference presentations, or other professional distributions.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“None of the letters indicate how they became aware of the Petitioner's research, techniques, or proposed program.”
AAO decision text
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
2,589coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO explicitly relied on letters from individuals 'experimenting with or applying' the Beneficiary's concepts, faulting them because none indicated how they became aware of her research; AAO also noted the Petitioner's business owner was a family member of the Beneficiary's spouse (footnote 1), though this was not analyzed for its bearing on the 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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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