The Petitioner, a nurse, proposed to establish and operate her own health consulting company providing occupational safety, OSHA/CDC regulatory compliance training, audits, and public health advocacy services, particularly for underserved communities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the evidence does not establish that operating a healthcare consulting company will have broader implications or influence in the healthcare field that will rise to the level of national importance”

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached”

“the record does not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that her specific endeavor would resolve the shortage or that her endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States”

“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the record does not establish that the endeavor will have a measurable impact beyond the Petitioner's clients and patients”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored
• other · ignored

  “we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually”

  AAO decision text

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
• 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 noted an apparent discrepancy between the Petitioner's signatures on the Form I-140 and Form I-290B but expressly reserved that issue since the appeal was dismissed on other grounds. AAO also discussed and rejected the argument that nursing's DOL 'Schedule A' shortage designation supports national importance, clarifying that Schedule A status is not itself a job-offer waiver and does not establish national importance for NIW purposes.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers