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, proposed to provide nursing care for elderly patients (including a home-care project), train other nurses, and teach nursing at the collegiate level in the United States.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding and concluded the Petitioner established a bachelor's degree in nursing plus five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B), despite the work experience letters appearing conclusory, because supplemental evidence corroborated the details.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agree that while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed clinical and academic work has substantial merit, the evidence is not sufficient to show this endeavor's national importance.”
“he does not sufficiently identify, analyze or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within her prospective endeavor in the United States.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the record does not establish that her clinical work would impact the nursing field and healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients she serves.”
“Considering this vague statement, and the lack of adequate evidence regarding the specific nature of the Petitioner's proposed academic endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the prospective impact of the specific endeavor(s)”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he does not sufficiently identify, analyze or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's threshold denial (finding the work experience letters, though conclusory, sufficiently corroborated) but still dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1, faulting the petitioner's expert letter for conflating field-wide importance (nursing shortages) with the specific endeavor's importance.
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. 204.5(g)(1)
- Matter of V-K-
- 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