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 former clinical nurse specialist and caregiver, proposed to operate a home health care services company providing personalized care, therapy, and training services to seniors, pregnant women, adults, and children.
Field: home health care / nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she does not provide further explanation of what if any innovative practices or technological advancements she intends to introduce”
“the record does not show how her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her patients to lead to "national or even global implications,"”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated with credible and probative evidence how the economic activity directly resulting from her company and its operations would rise to the level of national importance”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work”
“the record contains inconsistent information pertaining to the Petitioner's employment and financial projects.”
“she has not explained to what extent these benefits, even if implemented, will meaningly address the claimed nationwide shortage on a broader level.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record contains inconsistent information pertaining to the Petitioner's employment and financial projects.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not establish the broader implications of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
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
- 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 that the Petitioner's appeal largely reiterated general disagreement without identifying a specific legal or factual error, citing Matter of Valencia; AAO nonetheless reviewed the record de novo and found prong one dispositive, declining to reach prongs two and three under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of E-M-
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