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 nurse, proposed to work in U.S. hospitals and clinics providing specialized nursing care (including intensive, neurological, cardiac, and neonatal care) and to train and mentor future U.S. nursing professionals.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her field.”
“Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or her patients to impact her field”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“also describe her skills and prior work experience in the field of nursing”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director applied an incorrect (heightened) standard of proof, which AAO rejected for lack of specificity. Petitioner also raised a training/mentorship 'multiplier effect' argument, which AAO analogized to Dhanasar's own facts regarding teaching activities not having broad field impact.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor (as opposed to the nursing profession generally) had impact extending beyond her employer/patients to a national scale, per Dhanasar prong 1.
Tie the proposed endeavor to concrete, quantifiable national-level impact (not just industry importance or general shortage) beyond the immediate employer or patient base.
vague
public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_job_creation
person_focused
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