dismissedJAN192024_02B52032024-01-19 · 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, a registered nurse, sought to work as a nurse and trainer in Florida while pursuing a doctor of nursing practice degree, with plans to later become a nursing professor and traveling nurse.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“The materials demonstrate that the registered nursing occupation is important; however, this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that her endeavor would resolve the shortage or that her endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
“the Petitioner has not established that her endeavor will have an impact that extends beyond her patients and trainees to the broader field of nursing or healthcare”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“this is not a waiver of the job offer requirement, and as such it does not support a finding that nursing-related work inherently has national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these relate to the second Dhanasar prong... They do not establish what impact her endeavor will have.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents to demonstrate her eligibility”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's skills and experience in the nursing field, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
AAO addressed the Schedule A occupation designation for nurses (indicating a labor shortage) and explained that this DOL designation, which exempts employers from labor market testing, does not equate to establishing national importance for NIW purposes since it is a different legal mechanism than a job offer waiver.
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