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 a U.S. healthcare facility treating patients with orthopedic, neurological, cardiorespiratory and related conditions, while also educating and supervising other physiotherapists.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on her bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the documents submitted establish that the benefits of working as a physical therapist in a healthcare facility, the proposed endeavor, would extend beyond her patients and employers in a manner that could be considered of national importance.”
“even if the Petitioner was able to establish a shortage of physical therapists in the United States, the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process.”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“the Petitioner does not offer specific examples of such impact on "the economy," nor does she provide evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has "broader implications"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- citations publications · discounted
“one of the articles she provided directly contradicts that assertion”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these courses are not relevant for the purpose of establishing the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO disagreed with the Director's underlying rationale (that no endeavor was identified) but still dismissed on an independent national-importance ground, illustrating that AAO may substitute its own basis for denial. The conclusion paragraph inconsistently refers to the Petitioner as 'he' despite consistent 'she' usage throughout, an apparent drafting/OCR artifact.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
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