dismissedNOV212024_08B52032024-11-21 · appeal · Texas 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 petitioner, a nurse, proposed to establish a Florida-based home care company providing outpatient nursing care, home hospitalization, psychological assistance, and occupational therapy.
Field: nursing / home healthcare · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her services as a nurse through her company in the I Florida area.”
“However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures.”
“the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications”
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence, corroborating the assertions and figures”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not explain how they have broader implications for our country”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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
1,312coded 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
AAO explicitly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues; also noted the dismissal rests on each stated reason as an independent and alternate basis.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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