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 work in the U.S. developing and researching new physical therapy techniques for aesthetic and muscular paralysis disorders, training other professionals, and treating patients.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; not disputed on appeal.
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”
“the Petitioner has not established that her endeavor will have an impact that extends beyond her patients and trainees to the broader field of physical therapy or healthcare”
“we further note that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that her endeavor would resolve the shortage or that her endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has influenced the physical therapy industry broadly”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these experiences are material to Dhanasar's second prong... but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession... but the proposed endeavor's specific impact”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments and resubmits previously submitted documents”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
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-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated prong-2 personal credentials/experience with prong-1 national importance; failed to show impact extending beyond her own patients and trainees to the broader field.
Separate personal qualifications from endeavor impact; provide concrete evidence the specific endeavor itself will produce measurable, field-wide or national-scale benefits.
moderate
public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement
person_focused
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