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 assistant, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver to continue working in her field in the United States.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria due to unresolved credibility inconsistencies in her employment history, and even setting those aside, the totality of evidence (license, membership, salary, education) did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating that APTA requires at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not indicate her experience has provided her with expertise above others in the field.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not shown that her remuneration is indicative of exceptional ability.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The evidence of the Petitioner's educational credentials...show that she has earned the minimum qualifications to work in her field.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's response does not provide sufficient explanation to overcome our concerns regarding the credibility of the claims and evidence submitted.”
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
The AAO issued its own Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on appeal based on identified inconsistencies in the Petitioner's employment history, applying Matter of Ho credibility analysis extensively before finding the threshold exceptional-ability classification unmet. Because this threshold finding was dispositive, the AAO expressly declined to reach any of the Dhanasar NIW prongs.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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