dismissedOCT312024_10B52032024-10-31 · 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, initially proposing to work as a nursing instructor, later revised her endeavor on RFE to founding and serving as CEO/COO of a Florida-based medical and healthcare training company offering courses to healthcare professionals.
Field: healthcare/nursing education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find that the Petitioner has materially changed her proposed endeavor from the time of submission to the RFE”
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
“a national shortage of healthcare professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
“merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the area where her company intends to operate is economically depressed”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“a national shortage of healthcare professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
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
- 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
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- 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 first flagged an impermissible material change of proposed endeavor (from nursing instructor to business owner) under Matter of Izummi, but proceeded to substantively address prong one on the merits and dismissed on that basis rather than solely on the material-change ground.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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