dismissedJUN202024_05B52032024-06-20 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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.
A nurse proposed to deliver nursing care, health data analysis, and medical auditing services in the U.S., asserting this would help address the national nursing shortage and improve patient care quality.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's foreign degree was equivalent to only a bachelor's degree, not an advanced degree, and she did not accumulate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience (only about 1.5 years total) to qualify as the equivalent of a master's degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“shortages of occupations or occupational skills do not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner did not elaborate on how her proposed employment as a nurse providing patient care, auditing, and health data analysis would have broader implications for the field of nursing”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's solicited letters of recommendation outlined her skills but did not address her achievements or significant contributions to the industry”
“she did not provide documentation demonstrating the significance and impact of her articles in the industry, such as evidence they had a strong citation history”
“the personal plan does not detail how the Petitioner herself has impacted the industry or how she intends to advance her proposed endeavor”
“she has not described how her duties in her current position, or her other job offer are relevant to her proposed endeavor, merely listing them as illustrative”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the personal plan does not detail how the Petitioner herself has impacted the industry or how she intends to advance her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's solicited letters of recommendation outlined her skills but did not address her achievements or significant contributions to the industry”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“she did not provide documentation demonstrating the significance and impact of her articles in the industry, such as evidence they had a strong citation history”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge does not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“she has not described how her duties in her current position, or her other job offer are relevant to her proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- certification membership · discounted
“her certificates and training documentation similarly did not evidence the Petitioner's contributions to the industry but rather documented trainings”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on both the underlying advanced-degree eligibility and prong 1 national importance, but ultimately based dismissal dispositively on prong 2 (adopting and affirming the Director's reasoning per Matter of Burbano), reserving prong 3. New evidence on appeal (nursing degree completion, H-1B approval) was excluded under the Katigbak time-of-filing rule.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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