dismissedJUL202021_05B52032021-07-20 · appeal · 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.
A psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner sought to continue treating patients and to operate his own mental health services LLC, initially as sole provider then expanding staff and patient load to address mental healthcare shortages and disparities.
Field: psychiatric mental health nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on his U.S. master's degree in nursing.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's patient work would impact the field of psychiatric mental health or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific patients and workplace he serves.”
“Overall, the portions of identical language and formatting contained in the letters diminishes the probative value of the letters as a whole because it suggests the letters were not independently written.”
“the author does not provide sufficient detail or evidence to substantiate the claim of a significant contribution in this area.”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his mental health work would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”
“The Petitioner's argument incorrectly focuses on the importance and value of his patients as individuals rather than on the impact of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the portions of identical language and formatting contained in the letters diminishes the probative value of the letters as a whole”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not explained... how his business will operate differently than other preexisting mental health practices”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“even considering a mental health provider shortage, he has not persuasively established how his activities will have a broader impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,589coded 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
Petitioner argued the Director's decision implied Wisconsin patients were 'inconsequential to the nation'; AAO rejected this framing as conflating individual patient value with the required broader/national impact of the endeavor.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- 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