dismissedJUL082024_03B52032024-07-08 · motion_reopen · 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, proposed a hospice/palliative care program involving research findings and a distribution/presentation strategy intended to influence end-of-life care practices.
Field: hospice / palliative care healthcare management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We found the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
“the record did not show through supporting documentation how the particular services sufficiently extend beyond the patients of selected doctors”
“We further determined that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the proposed endeavor would positively impact the national economy.”
“the Petitioner asserts, without corroborating documentation, that "if the endeavor succeeds in the most competitive region, it will succeed nationally."”
“does not illustrate the "potential prospective impact" of her actual proposed work, or how it will impact the hospice care field more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters from hospices largely repeat what was already included in the record.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not illustrate the "potential prospective impact" of her actual proposed work”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“she did not state new facts as they relate to our prior decision”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
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
- 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
This is a motion to reopen after a prior AAO dismissal; the AAO's review is limited to whether new facts overcome the prior national-importance finding, and it treats the newly submitted grant proposal, distribution strategy, and hospice letters as largely duplicative/unsubstantiated rather than reaching prongs 2 or 3.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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