The Petitioner, a registered nurse, proposed to establish and operate an in-home healthcare services business in Florida, including offering online training courses for home healthcare professionals.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not establish that operating an in-home healthcare company will have broader implications or influence in the in-home healthcare field that will rise to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not establish that the endeavor will have a measurable impact beyond the Petitioner's clients and patients to reach the level of national or even global impact.”

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets, business expansion plans, and revenue forecasts will be reached.”

“this is not a waiver of the job offer requirement, and as such it does not support a finding that nursing-related work inherently has national importance”

“although the Petitioner also argues that her endeavor aligns with government initiatives, alignment with government initiatives alone is not sufficient for national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not establish that the endeavor will have a measurable impact beyond the Petitioner's clients and patients”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the record does not show that she has five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty”

  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

AAO noted the Petitioner erroneously invoked the vacated NYSDOT framework alongside Dhanasar. AAO also rejected the argument that nursing's DOL 'Schedule A' occupational-shortage designation supports national importance, clarifying that the Schedule A exemption from labor market testing is distinct from the NIW job-offer waiver and does not 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.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers