The petitioner, a nurse, initially proposed to work as a primary care and emergency nurse in medically underserved, health-professional-shortage areas of Florida. In response to an RFE she instead proposed to launch her own occupational health consulting company; USCIS treated this as an impermissible material change and did not consider it.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not illustrate how her specific endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her patients or the individuals she trains to impact the field more broadly.”

“working in an important industry or sector, even one that is the subject of national priorities, is not sufficient in and of itself to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“General conclusory statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed impacts are insufficient.”

“there is also little evidence that her future work stands to impact or significantly reduce any claimed national shortage.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these letters provide little probative information in establishing how the proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · ignored

  “her claims related to her new occupational health consulting company proffered after the filing of the petition cannot be considered”

  AAO decision text
• other · 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

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The petitioner changed her proposed endeavor mid-adjudication (from bedside nursing to launching an occupational health consulting company); USCIS treated this as an impermissible material change under Matter of Katigbak, and the AAO found the petitioner had waived any challenge to that finding by not contesting it on appeal, then declined to consider evidence tied to the new endeavor. The AAO also flagged doubt about the underlying EB-2 threshold classification but expressly reserved that issue as unnecessary to the dispositive prong-one denial.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of Katigbak

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