dismissedJUL192023_01B52032023-07-19 · 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, an athletic trainer specializing in physical rehabilitation, sought to found a physical rehabilitation institute in the U.S. providing treatments for chronic pain, post-surgical recovery, and other physical ailments.
Field: athletic training / physical rehabilitation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence linking his physical rehabilitation services to having a broader reach extending beyond his clientele to merit national importance.”
“they do not discuss the specific nature of his proposed future endeavor.”
“these support letters do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and lack sufficient information and evidence to show the prospective impact”
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it overstates the evidence in the record and does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his proposed company will be on such a scale as to impact the national economy directly or indirectly.”
“the Petitioner has shown only the national importance of the physical therapy or sports training field in which he intends to work and does not offer sufficient evidence to establish the national importance of his specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss the specific nature of his proposed future endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not elaborate on the [proprietary methodology] or its usage in the field”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his proposed company will be on such a scale as to impact the national economy”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 withdrew the Director's finding on substantial merit (found it met), but still dismissed on national importance element of prong 1 alone, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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)
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