The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained nurse, proposed to work in the United States as a home health aide, providing in-home care to patients including the elderly, post-surgical patients, and individuals recovering from substance abuse.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show it has national importance.”

“she does not provide further explanation of her unique and innovative methodologies such that they can be considered to extend beyond her individual patients.”

“the record does not show how her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her patients to lead to "national or even global implications" to the healthcare field more broadly”

“without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work ... the record does not show benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”

“this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. As previously discussed, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

  “the record does not show that she acquired five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty”

  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

Notable

Although the AAO's prong-one finding was dispositive, it also went further and withdrew the Director's prior favorable determination that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, citing unresolved inconsistencies in her employment history and a shortfall of approximately nine months in the required five years of post-baccalaureate experience, instructing her to address this in any future filing despite declining to issue an RFE on the point.

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(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of Ho
• 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