dismissedJAN292025_06B52032025-01-29 · motion_reconsider · 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 sought to start a business in Montana providing home health services directly to seniors and training nurses and other health care professionals to deliver home care services.
Field: health care / elder home care services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual will work.”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated these activities would sufficiently extend beyond her company and clientele to impact the field of health care services”
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures.”
“the Petitioner also did not establish the significance of this employment data to demonstrate the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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
This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the Petitioner failed to identify any specific law or policy misapplied, and the AAO reiterates that qualifications/business plan job-creation figures pertain to prong 2, not prong 1, while ultimately finding the national importance showing insufficiently supported regardless.
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(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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