dismissedNOV202024_06B52032024-11-20 · motion_reopen · Nebraska Service Center
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 Beneficiary, a healthcare management specialist, proposed to develop and disseminate a palliative-care/hospice program and research findings, initially focused on Southern California, with the aim of influencing hospice and palliative care practices nationwide.
Field: hospice and palliative care / healthcare management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We determined that the record did not demonstrate broader implications of the proposed endeavor at a level of national importance or that the proposed endeavor would positively impact the national economy.”
“we found that the Petitioner did not provide corroborating documentation to support the assertion that the proposed endeavor will succeed nationally if it succeeds in the most competitive region.”
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to show the broader impact of the Beneficiary's work and corroborate the assertion that the proposed endeavor would broadly influence the hospice and palliative care field and rise to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters from hospices generally repeated information that was already in the record”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“did not establish broader implications of the proposed endeavor at a level of national importance”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to show the broader impact of the Beneficiary's work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This is a second motion to reopen following a prior dismissed appeal and first motion to reopen, all turning solely on prong 1 (national importance); the AAO repeatedly found new evidence (letters, distribution strategy, membership, reports) insufficient to overcome the local, Southern-California-focused scope of the endeavor.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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