The Petitioner, a nutritionist and nutrition educator with a state Department of Health, proposed to continue work related to a federally funded WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program and related nutrition/health services, including vaccination site assistance.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that simply working for a federally funded program is sufficient to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to impact the healthcare industry or the field of nutrition more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

“a nutritionist shortage in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“her education and past experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “her education and past experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “does not sufficiently explain how this establishes that her proposed endeavor as a nutritionist is of national importance”

  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
• 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

AAO adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of P. Singh/Burbano framework rather than conducting fully independent analysis, while adding its own comments. Petitioner's WIC/federal-funding argument and 'first individual selected by the Government' argument were both rejected as insufficient to establish national importance.

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.

• Chen v. INS
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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