The Petitioner, a registered nurse, sought to open a healthcare consulting and education business in Florida offering in-person and telehealth nursing and health education services.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”

“However, it is not apparent how her endeavor would resolve this shortage or impact it on a national level.”

“the record does not include documentation establishing that this business activity would constitute a significant economic benefit to the United States, Florida, or any economically depressed region through employment levels or business activity”

“The totality of the evidence does not establish that the endeavor has significant potential to generate the kinds of "substantial positive economic effects" envisioned by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “It does not document how these activities would constitute an advancement for the field of healthcare or nursing.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored

  “these relate to the second Dhanasar prong... They do not establish what impact her endeavor will have.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “We acknowledge the documentation regarding the Petitioner's experience and qualifications... They do not establish what impact her endeavor will have.”

  AAO decision text

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
• 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

Notable

AAO rejected the argument that the DOL's Schedule A designation for nursing shortages supports national importance, clarifying that Schedule A exemption from labor market testing is distinct from a national interest waiver. AAO also noted the Petitioner failed to specify a HUBZone location for her business despite claiming economic-depressed-area benefits, and criticized her use of 'professional, scientific, and technical services' economic multipliers instead of healthcare-specific ones.

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. 103.3
• 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