NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG052024_01B52032024-08-05 · motion_reconsider · Nebraska 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 physical therapist, proposed to operate a mobile pediatric physical therapy company to provide much-needed therapy services to underserved young patients.

Field: pediatric physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

we determined the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar
we concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor
the record did not establish her specific proposed endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have a substantial positive economic effect

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    we raised questions regarding the contents of the business plan, specifically relating to proposed hiring and wages
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    the Petitioner does not cite any specific error in our application of Dhanasar or specify any other legal error or misapplication of policy
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Local, not national scope · p1impact confined to clients / a region
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

This is a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO's review was limited to whether the prior decision misapplied law or policy, and it found the Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments without identifying legal error.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles