The Petitioner, a surgical technologist/nurse, proposed to continue working in nursing and healthcare, providing surgical support services to physicians and educating future nursing professionals, without a specific employer.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate how her proposed endeavor's impact would extend beyond her employer and patients to the field of nursing or the nation as a whole.”

“In determining national importance, 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."”

“Nevertheless, this reasoning focuses on the field of nursing and healthcare as a whole, not on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”

“Although the Petitioner points out the healthcare industry's importance to the economy, she has not identified how her specific endeavor contributes to the economy.”

“It is not apparent, for instance, if she will assist surgeons in the operating room, attend to residents in a nursing home, serve as a first responder, or work as a nurse in some other capacity.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhansar prong”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted
• media · discounted

  “they do not necessarily support a finding that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this reasoning focuses on the field of nursing and healthcare as a whole, not on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  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 noted the attorney had not documented representation on appeal, casting Petitioner's arguments as attorney-prepared statements; advisory opinion author's credentials partly redacted in OCR.

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