dismissedJUL302024_04B52032024-07-30 · 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, proposed to work in the U.S. as an entrepreneur by opening her own physical therapy business, which she claimed would create jobs and generate revenue.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed by AAO.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“these figures do not establish that the Petitioner's company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
“she did not establish the specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications or have a broader impact beyond the individual patients served by her company”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- media · discounted
“she did not establish the specific proposed endeavor will have substantial national implications”
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
- 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
1,358coded 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 addressed and rejected Petitioner's procedural argument that the Director applied a heightened standard of proof, clarifying preponderance of the evidence governs; also noted RFE process was proper under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8).
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)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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