The Petitioner, a nurse, proposed to continue working as a nurse in a Florida hospital, eventually pursuing further education and leadership roles while helping fill a national nursing shortage.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's patient work would impact the field of nursing or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific patients and workplace she serves”

“these arguments focus on the field of nursing and healthcare as a whole, notthe Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner has not suggested that her work will resolve the national nursing shortage, nor has she explained what specific impact her work would have on reducing such a shortage”

“none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it would be nationally important”

“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected impact on the national nursing shortage or U.S. taxes that would be attributable to her future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “none of the letters offers persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it would be nationally important”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “her success would still be limited to the patients and employers she serves”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Neither [the professor] nor the Petitioner offered sufficient evidence to address the shortcomings identified by the Director”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “this evidence does not address the evidentiary shortcomings in the record concerning the national importance requirement”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• 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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• 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 refused to recognize the person who filed the appeal as counsel because he did not provide evidence of law license eligibility, and stated the decision would be sent only to the Petitioner, not to him.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• 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