dismissedMAY152024_05B52032024-05-15 · combined · 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 sought to continue working as a nursing management specialist through her own company, assisting healthcare organizations, providers, clinics, and hospitals in implementing healthcare procedures.
Field: nursing management / healthcare consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her healthcare company to impact the healthcare field or the economy at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her revenue projections and potential business activity, even if realistic, would provide a significant economic benefit to the United States”
“the record does not show that her specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own company and its clientele to impact her field or industry, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her revenue projections and potential business activity...would provide a significant economic benefit”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar precedent decision”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
2,501coded 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
Petitioner attempted to analogize her case to Dhanasar itself (citing similar expert letters and research), but AAO rejected the analogy, finding her endeavor lacked the broader field implications present in Dhanasar's hypersonic propulsion research.
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. 103.5
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution