dismissedJUL242024_05B52032024-07-24 · combined · 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.
Petitioner, a nurse, proposed to work as a hospital nurse in Florida, earn a doctorate in nursing, and become a travel nurse expanding advanced nursing practices; on motion she expanded this to include academic/research collaborations, professional associations, training manuals, an online national professional-development platform, and a consultancy model.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we determined the Petitioner did not show her endeavor would have an impact beyond her patients and trainees to the broader field of nursing or healthcare”
“she did not provide sufficient evidence to show it would have a significant impact on solving the nursing shortage in the United States”
“The Petitioner does not provide the specifics needed to show how her new expanded endeavor will be implemented”
“she provided no information on the economics of creating such a platform like what it would cost to create and who would burden that cost”
“this expanded endeavor is so substantial it may be considered a material change to what was initially proposed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner does not provide the specifics needed to show how her new expanded endeavor will be implemented.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“this new evidence does not show she is eligible for the benefit sought”
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
- 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
1,358coded 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 filed two nearly identical combined motions under different receipt numbers, prompting AAO to note it would issue two separate decisions; AAO treated the substantially expanded endeavor as a potential impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- 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