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 and nurse, proposed to work as a physical therapist at a chiropractic clinic in Illinois, treating elderly patients and those from underrepresented and lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's exceptional-ability denial rationale but independently found the Petitioner met only one of the six regulatory criteria (academic degree); work-experience letters did not establish 10 years full-time experience, professional association memberships were not limited to the profession, and recommendation letters did not show recognition for significant contributions above the ordinary.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“What can be concluded from the record is that the performance of duties of physical therapist would benefit only the company employing the Petitioner and utilizing their services”
“the record does not adequately support how the performance of these duties by the Petitioner would potentially prospectively impact the Petitioner's field in a manner that rose to the level of national importance”
“the evidence in the record does not identify any hiring plans or any locality or economically depressed area that could benefit from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“activities which only benefit a single employer would not rise to a level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not contain sufficient detail to establish that the Petitioner worked in full-time employment”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“membership in these associations is not sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's membership in professional associations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these letters represent noteworthy achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the record does not contain any meaningful analysis of the broader implications or potential prospective economic impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO expressly withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not qualify for exceptional ability and also withdrew the Director's rationale that 'employment as a physical therapist is not an endeavor,' clarifying that ongoing employment duties can constitute a proposed endeavor if adequately described, but nonetheless dismissed on national-importance grounds, reserving prongs two and three.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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