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, proposed to provide high-quality nursing services to the elderly in the United States and to educate future nurses about caring for an aging population.
Field: nursing / geriatric care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“providing the same or similar routine services that all other workers in the same occupational category and specialty provide ... is not indicative of national importance”
“The Petitioner's assertion that, by working as a nurse, she will "address a nursing shortage in the economy" is unpersuasive”
“her qualifications do not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong and we need not address them further”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“a government official's public statement merely related to a particular industry or occupational category is not the type of governmental interest contemplated by Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“the publications referenced by the Petitioner ... do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her qualifications do not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong and we need not address them further”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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 expressly withdrew the Director's implication that all endeavors must show substantial positive economic benefits, clarifying that health/welfare benefits can suffice, but still found national importance unmet because the endeavor amounted to routine nursing services without broader field-wide implications.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor (routine nursing/education duties) had broader national or field-wide implications beyond routine job performance, as Dhanasar prong 1 requires.
Tie the endeavor to a concrete, scalable mechanism with demonstrable field- or nation-wide impact, not just credentials, general industry importance, or routine job duties.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
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