dismissedJUL312024_06B52032024-07-31 · 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 establish and operate a physical therapy services company in Florida marketing in-home rehabilitation services to senior patients.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed by AAO.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor"”

“a claimed shortage of professionals alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor”

“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”

“the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients he would serve”

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
other · discounted
“a claimed shortage of professionals alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored

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

1,312coded 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 rejected the Petitioner's reliance on DOL's Schedule A designation for physical therapists (a labor-shortage classification), reasoning that Schedule A's benefit runs to the sponsoring employer, not to a broader national interest, so a claimed shortage alone cannot establish national importance.

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
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Flores v. Garland
Matter of E-M-
Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor (not the field generally) had broader implications or scaled impact beyond his own clients and business, despite shortage/economic arguments.

Transferable lesson

Tie projected job creation, revenue, or shortage-relief directly to the specific endeavor's documented scale and geographic impact, not general industry statistics or credentials.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer