dismissedJUN222023_03B52032023-06-22 · appeal · Texas 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.
The Petitioner, a nurse, proposed to work with a health care facility providing expert nursing advice and treatment to patients, and later described plans to develop a home health service company in Florida.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Petitioner was found to be an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner did not substantiate the business plan's growth projections or future job creation to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy”
“the Petitioner does not meaningfully analyze how her specific endeavor meets the national importance as defined in Dhanasar or provide independent and objective evidence to substantiate her claims.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate how her proposed endeavor would impact the field of nursing more broadly”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not substantiate the business plan's growth projections or future job creation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
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
- 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
1,312coded 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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision in full under Matter of Burbano rather than conducting independent analysis, and declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite the Director having found prong 2 satisfied.
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
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of E-M-
- 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