dismissedAUG232023_03B52032023-08-23 · appeal · 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 open her own physical therapy clinic in Florida offering treatment for chronic pain, musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory and other conditions, eventually employing about 15 workers, while also possibly teaching new physical therapists.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field 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 how diagnosing and treating an unspecified number of individual patients as a physical therapist working at a single healthcare facility may have 'national or even global implications'”

“even if the Petitioner was able to establish a shortage of physical therapists in the United States, the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process”

“none of these letters elaborate on how her treatment of patients affected or influenced other physiotherapist or physical therapists, or otherwise elevated the Petitioner above her peers”

“she claimed that her proposed endeavor will positively impact the United States because it will allow her to... increase revenue, benefit the economy”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how diagnosing and treating an unspecified number of individual patients ... may have national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not articulate how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor ... will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's reliance throughout the record on her academic and prior employment history is misplaced”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“a shortage alone would not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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
Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

2,501coded 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 expressly reserved judgment on prongs two and three after finding prong one dispositive, relying on Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to decline reaching the remaining issues.

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.

Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer