A nurse with 15 years of experience proposed to continue working in the U.S. providing specialized nursing care focused on intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, cardiology, and related clinical services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as a nurse rises to the level of national importance.”

“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific nursing services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective patients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly”

“she does not substantiate her claims”

“she has not established how her individual nursing activities will resolve this shortage or impact it on a level rising to national importance”

“a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• resume experience · credited
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the prospective impact of working as a nurse rises to the level of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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 vacated the Director's threshold EB-2 finding (crediting five years' progressive experience as advanced-degree equivalent) but still dismissed the appeal on prong 1 national importance, expressly declining to reach prong 3 despite Petitioner's arguments on it.

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
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• 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