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 Brazilian-trained physical therapist and former Pilates studio owner, intended to work with a U.S. healthcare facility providing physical therapy treatment and advice to patients using techniques such as Pilates method, functional dermatology, and postural reeducation.
Field: physical therapy / Pilates instruction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner failed to establish either advanced-degree-professional status (insufficient corroborated evidence of five years' progressive post-baccalaureate experience in physical therapy, with employee/peer letters found conclusory, boilerplate, and undifferentiated between Pilates instruction and physiotherapy) or exceptional ability (only one of six regulatory criteria satisfied, and Petitioner did not contest the Director's findings on the remaining criteria on appeal).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The general assertions in these letters do not indicate how the Petitioner ... divided her time between the running of her business and her provision of Pilates instruction and physiotherapy services.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“This lack of documentation, coupled with the notations by the FCCPT, raise questions regarding the validity of her claim.”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Because the Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 classification (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability), the AAO declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis at all, deeming it 'moot.' The decision heavily scrutinizes identical, boilerplate-format letters from three former employees as insufficiently corroborative and non-progressive, and discounts an expert opinion letter for failing to specify reviewed documentation as required under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g).
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
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