NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL142023_05B52032023-07-14 · appeal · Texas 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, sought to continue working as a physical therapist for a professional soccer team in the United States, including testing equipment/protocols, mentoring interns, and speaking at conferences.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“It is not apparent from the evidence provided how the Petitioner's proposed work as a physical therapist for a professional soccer team, in and of itself: would impact the field of physical therapy on a national level.”
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's teaching, specifically, would influence his field on a level rising to the level of national importance”
“the evidence does not establish how the Petitioner's endeavor, in and of itself: would resolve the shortage of physical therapists or impact it on a national level”
“This does not establish that the Petitioner's individual work as a physical therapist for a major league soccer team would have an economic impact rising to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “They do not establish that this endeavor, in and of itself, has significant potential to contribute to the advancement of the field.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's experience and credentials speak to the second prong of the Dhanasar test”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the evidence does not establish how the Petitioner's endeavor, in and of itself, would resolve the shortage of physical therapists or impact it on a national level”
    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
  • 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
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 specifically rejected the argument that Schedule A occupational shortage designation for physical therapists confers national importance, clarifying that Schedule A exempts employers from labor market testing but is distinct from a job-offer waiver under NIW analysis.

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-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor (not the profession or industry generally) would have national-level impact; evidence centered on personal credentials and general field/shortage importance instead.

Transferable lesson

Tie evidence directly to the proposed endeavor's specific, quantifiable national-level impact—not just industry importance, shortage data, or personal reputation/credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer