The Petitioner, a registered nurse, proposed to own and operate an assisted living facility for the elderly in Florida as its chief executive officer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and facility residents to impact either the healthcare or assisted living industries more broadly”

“she has not shown that her business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits to Florida or to the United States”

“it is not clear how employment of a few individuals in an occupation in which there is a general national shortage would render the proposed endeavor nationally important”

“the issue is not relevant to whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor to own and operate an assisted living facility rises to the level of national importance”

“The business plan does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · ignored

  “the recommendation letters relate to the second prong of Matter of Dhanasar, an issue that will be reserved”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The business plan does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy...would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Although this may be an issue of significance in the economy generally, the issue is not relevant to whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor...rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• 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

Petitioner cited SBA 2023 budget initiatives and general research on immigration/entrepreneurship benefits as evidence of national importance; AAO rejected this as too generalized and not tied to the specific endeavor.

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
• 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