The Petitioner, a registered nurse, proposed to work as a nurse at a U.S. healthcare facility, providing patient care, educating patients and the public, and training other nurses.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not "establish that her nursing work would impact the nursing field and healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients she serves and her colleagues she will mentor."”

“merely working in the healthcare field as a nurse is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“it does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important under Dhanasar's framework, as it does not in itself establish the proposed endeavor's impact in the field.”

“The record does not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor includes actively targeting U.S. healthcare companies that do business, or plan to do business in Latin America or Brazil.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• certification membership · discounted

  “The record does not include evidence demonstrating the National Board of Nursing is a professional association, as required under the criterion.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials and professional experience to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss how the Petitioner working as a nurse will overcome the shortage of nurses and healthcare workers in the United States.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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 first found the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability classification (contrary to the Director's unexplained finding that she qualified), then separately affirmed denial on Dhanasar prong 1 national importance grounds, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary despite the Director having ruled on all three prongs below.

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(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of Caron Int'l
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

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