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 practitioner trained in a rural/underserved-populations focused program, proposed to continue providing patient care, including treatment of allergic and acute illness patients, at a clinic in the United States.
Field: nursing / nurse practitioner · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; exceptional ability claim rendered moot.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“that the effects of [her] employment will be felt beyond the current confines of her employment with”
“The Petitioner has submitted no documentation or other evidence to support her speculative assertion that her relationship with patients would result in increased job creation or other economic benefits.”
“The collective importance of all nurse practitioners addresses the issue of substantial merit, which the Director granted.”
“These provisions, however, are not national interest waivers under the Dhanasar framework.”
“The Petitioner's attendance at these local and regional gatherings does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he is confident that she will also be a successful researcher in the future, but the Petitioner's own statement described no future research plans”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“attendance at these local and regional gatherings does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“she provided no evidence that this paper has affected the diagnosis or treatment”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Benefit to individual patients does not automatically show national importance.”
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
- 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 invoked the COVID-19 immigrant visa proclamation exemption for healthcare professionals and analogized her role to physician shortage-based waivers and Schedule A Group I nurse designation; AAO rejected both as inapplicable to the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework.
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.
- 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