The Petitioner, a nurse with ICU and home care/nursing coordinator experience, proposed to continue working as a nurse serving a diverse patient base and providing acute, rehabilitative, and convalescent care.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not specify whether he intends to work in a specific hospital or whether he will work as a traveling nurse.”

“Rather, the impact would likely be limited to the specific patients and workplaces the Petitioner plans to serve.”

“While these reports and articles demonstrate the importance of the nursing field, they are not sufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance.”

“this reasoning focuses on the field of nursing and healthcare, not on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, which is the focal point in a determination of an endeavor's national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “such letters offer no persuasive detail concerning the impact of the proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond the patients and employers”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or demonstrate how its impact would rise to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “they do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor, nor do they explain how the specific endeavor would impact the national nursing shortage”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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 expressly declined to decide the underlying EB-2 advanced degree classification issue despite noting the record 'as currently constituted lacks sufficient evidence' to support it, resolving the case solely on prong 1 national importance.

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