dismissedOCT272022_01B52032022-10-27 · 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 critical care nurse, proposed to work with a U.S. healthcare facility providing nursing advice and treatment to patients, including training medical professionals and participating in vaccination drives.
Field: nursing/critical care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor"”
“the professional plan and statement submitted in response to the Director's RFE reiterates that the endeavor will benefit the Petitioner's employer and its clients and patients”
“The generalized industry reports and articles in the record regarding the nursing and healthcare industries do not address the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's prior career experience is relevant to the second Dhanasar prong... but not to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation, describing the Petitioner's prior career, rather than the prospective endeavor... do not address whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The generalized industry reports and articles in the record regarding the nursing and healthcare industries do not address the specific endeavor”
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
777coded 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 after finding prong 1 dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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.
- 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