NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY142024_09B52032024-05-14 · 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, an experienced nurse, proposed to found and expand a home health care company offering multidisciplinary in-home care (nursing, therapy, physician services) to U.S. patients, with plans to eventually franchise nationally.

Field: nursing / home health care services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“Notably, on appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the nursing field and the benefits of home health care in general to establish the national importance of her endeavor, but this misapplies the Dhanasar framework”
“Identifying a shortage of qualified professionals or establishing an industry need does not necessarily render the work of an individual endeavor nationally important”
“the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue and employment projections”
“activities which only benefit the Petitioner's prospective patients, like the offerings outlined in the business plan, would not have broader implications in the field rising to the level of national importance”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact have little probative value”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that she has obtained this license, contrary to the Director's conclusion”
“nor has she provided any evidence to establish she has taken steps to incorporate the company”
“The record does not contain evidence of the Petitioner's ability to invest the remaining $50,000, nor is Mr. W-L-' s letter of intent legally binding”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the projected economic activity of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided evidence that she has obtained this license, contrary to the Director's conclusion”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “The record does not contain evidence of the Petitioner's ability to invest the remaining $50,000, nor is Mr. W-L-'s letter of intent legally binding”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not explained how this operational impact is relevant to her home health care services company”
    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
  • 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
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 rejected a Schedule A nursing-shortage argument by noting that Schedule A labor certification benefits the employer, not the broader national interest; also rejected an untimely new claim of benefit to the 'fashion industry' raised for the first time on appeal, and found the petitioner had not even obtained the nursing license the Director had credited her with holding.

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)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Caron Int'l
  • Matter of D-R-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer