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 family nurse practitioner, proposed to open and operate a primary care medical services company using telemedicine technology, later expanding to in-person care, aiming to improve healthcare access and reduce health disparities.
Field: primary care nursing / telemedicine · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a master's degree in nursing, and the AAO agreed.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry and the profession as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner's statements are not supported by evidence to establish his proposed endeavor will have a positive economic impact”
“the record does not establish the staffing levels, business activity, or location of the company stand to provide the economic impact Dhanasar requires”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish the staffing levels, business activity, or location of the company stand to provide the economic impact Dhanasar requires”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“this article and proclamation do not further establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the record does not establish it will expand the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor for it to rise to the level of national importance”
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
Notable
AAO cites a footnote collecting circuit court authority (Flores v. Garland, joining Third, Ninth, Eleventh, D.C. Circuits) affirming the discretionary nature of NIW decisions. The AAO also highlights an internal contradiction: the Petitioner claimed the endeavor would generate 'thousands' of healthcare jobs, but the business plan itself projected only 11-13 jobs.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated industry/profession importance (telemedicine, nurse practitioners generally) with the specific endeavor's national importance, failing to show broader impact beyond his own patients.
Tie all evidence—economic, health-impact, or field-advancement claims—directly and quantitatively to the specific proposed venture, not to the general profession or industry it belongs to.
moderate
public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
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