A Brazilian pediatrician proposed to work in the United States as a nurse, focusing on pediatric nursing, providing nursing training, and delivering high-quality healthcare services to the Latino population, including in underserved (HPSA) areas of Utah.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor is of national importance.”

“a shortage of providers in certain areas or in the United States does not rise to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “The deficiencies in the already submitted evidence have been identified and discussed in our prior decisions.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's reliance on her education and experience relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “her plan to obtain licensing and credentials... relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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

This is a second motion to reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal and combined motion dismissal; the Petitioner's central argument was that USCIS's subsequent approval of a nearly identical Form I-140 (filed after this appeal) was a 'declaratory and binding' material fact requiring reversal, and that nonimmigrant prior-approval deference policy should extend to immigrant petitions. The AAO rejected both arguments, reaffirming it is not bound by potentially erroneous service center approvals and that nonimmigrant deference policy does not apply to immigrant classifications. Prongs 2 and 3 were never reached across all three decisions (appeal, first motion, and this motion), with prong 1's national-importance finding remaining sole dispositive basis throughout.

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(c)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of E-M-

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