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, a nurse, initially proposed to work in a clinical setting assessing patient needs and implementing care plans, and later, in response to an RFE, proposed to become a self-employed entrepreneur providing diabetes education, testing, clinical services, and training to other healthcare workers.
Field: nursing / diabetes care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the occupation did not require an advanced degree, but the AAO reversed on de novo review, finding the Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced-degree professional because the Director failed to address her RFE response.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the plan does not provide a credible methodology underlying the assumed expenses, projected income, and other financial projections”
“the Petitioner has not established that her intended business would have a substantial positive economic effect commensurate with national importance”
“The record does not contain evidence supporting a conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would lessen the shortage of nurses”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide a credible methodology underlying the assumed expenses, projected income, and other financial projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“this evidence relates to the substantial merit of the endeavor... but does not establish its prospective potential impact”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO reversed the Director's threshold EB-2 denial (finding the Director failed to address RFE evidence) but still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1, holding that the Petitioner's post-filing entrepreneurial business plan constituted an impermissible material change to the proposed endeavor and, even if considered, failed to establish 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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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