dismissedOCT202022_01B52032022-10-20 · 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.
A nurse initially proposed to work using her professional nursing experience in the U.S., then after the RFE shifted to proposing an independent medical transport/ambulatory removal services company offering home-based and clinic-based patient transport.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not reflect her intention to open and operate an ambulatory service company or work in healthcare transportation prior to the Director's issuance of the RFE”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her providing nursing services rather than the national importance of nursing or the wide range of healthcare fields”
“While she claimed a shortage of nurses in the United States, that issue is addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“the record does not show that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from her nursing services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
AAO refused to consider the petitioner's changed proposed endeavor (from general nursing work to an ambulatory transport company) raised only after the RFE, citing the eligibility-at-filing rule; decision dismissed appeal solely on prong 1 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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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