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.
A registered nurse sought to establish and operate a home health care business in the United States serving patients and clients.
Field: nursing / home health care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential patients or clients, to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims of her business' substantial economic benefits to the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not show that her proposed endeavor...stands to sufficiently extend beyond her potential patients or clients”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“This letter does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility.”
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
Notable
The Petitioner cited 'Matter of Poursina, 25 I&N Dec. 867 (BIA 2012)' in support, but the AAO noted it could not locate that decision and that the citation actually corresponds to Matter of Valenzuela, involving K-4 nonimmigrant status; the AAO declined to address the miscited authority further. The Petitioner also improperly relied on the vacated NYSDOT framework instead of Dhanasar.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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