dismissedOCT202021_02B52032021-10-20 · 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 and nursing coordinator, proposed to work with U.S. hospitals and clinics to coordinate, train, and guide nurses and medical staff, and to provide direct clinical care as part of a multidisciplinary team.
Field: nursing coordination · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in terms of significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects, beyond the Petitioner's employer and patients”
“the Petitioner's focus on appeal on the importance of the fields of nursing and healthcare, and generalized shortages, do not address aspects of the specific endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“References in the record to the COVID-19 pandemic, arising after the petition filing date, relate to a new set of facts that did not exist as of the petition filing date.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's statements on appeal regarding her expertise and prior career accomplishments do not address how the proposed endeavor has broader implications”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
746coded 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 applied the eligibility-at-filing rule to exclude the Petitioner's post-filing COVID-19 pandemic arguments, noting the petition was filed in March 2018, well before the pandemic.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
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