dismissedJAN082025_08B52032025-01-08 · appeal · Texas 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 Petitioner, an ICU nurse, proposed to establish and operate a home health care services company providing individualized care to senior citizens, postoperative patients, and those recovering from workplace injuries, with plans to expand to multiple states over five years.
Field: nursing / home health care services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“these benefits relate to the substantial merit and importance of the field rather than the broader implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
“even if the company's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained and supported, they do not establish that her company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“letters of recommendation from former colleagues and a former patient attesting to her skills in the ICU”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these benefits relate to the substantial merit and importance of the field rather than the broader implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacks relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner also resubmitted the expert opinion letter, along with newly issued letters of recommendation and additional industry articles”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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
The Petitioner initially filed without a clear specific endeavor, then submitted a newly created business plan only in response to an RFE. The AAO noted the appeal lacked specificity, citing Matter of Valencia for failure to identify particular errors. The AAO drew an explicit analogy to the teaching activities in Dhanasar itself to illustrate why the Petitioner's endeavor lacked broader field implications. The AAO reserved both the EB-2 threshold determination and prongs 2 and 3 as the first prong was dispositive.
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers