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 initially proposed to work as a physical therapist specialist, but in response to an RFE she instead described starting her own home care services company; the AAO evaluated only the initial endeavor.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's degree evaluation did not establish the foreign equivalent of a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), which is customarily required for the profession, so combination of bachelor's degree plus experience was insufficient under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence did not sufficiently show the Petitioner's future work as a physical therapist specialist would have national or global implications”
“we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that her initial endeavor of working as a physical therapist specialist is nationally important”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the regulation does not allow for a combination of education and experience if a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“her claims related to her new home care services company started after the filing of the petition cannot be considered”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 finding (advanced degree) but still dismissed the appeal on national importance grounds, illustrating that AAO may withdraw a favorable finding sua sponte while affirming denial on other grounds. The case also involves a material-change-of-endeavor issue: the Petitioner switched from a physical therapist role to a home care business in RFE response, and the AAO/Director declined to consider the new endeavor since eligibility must be shown at time of filing.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner impermissibly changed her proposed endeavor post-filing and failed to rebut the Director's finding that the original PT-specialist endeavor lacked national importance.
Define the endeavor precisely at filing and substantiate its national-scale importance then; later material changes cannot cure or replace the original claim.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · other
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