dismissedJAN122023_01B52032023-01-12 · 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 Petitioner, a registered nurse, proposed to continue providing patient care at a nursing home/hospital and teaching nursing courses as an instructor at a community college, with prior mention of research on nursing home patient falls.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's patient care and teaching would impact the field of nursing or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific patients, students, and workplaces she serves.”
“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond the patients, students, and employers she serves.”
“she has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how the implications of her proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance.”
“she has not explained what specific impact her work would have on reducing such a shortage.”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the area in which she intends to carry out her proposed endeavor is economically depressed.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the impact she makes for her individual workplace, patients, and students as sufficient to meet the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded 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 changed proposed employers/locations between initial filing and RFE response (nursing home to hospital, one college to another), which the AAO cited as evidence that the endeavor's location and impact were unsettled, undermining the national importance analysis.
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)
- 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