dismissedJUN122023_04B52032023-06-12 · 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, initially proposed to fill a vacant physical therapist position at an existing healthcare facility, treating patients and training other therapists; in RFE response she instead claimed she would found and lead her own physiotherapy startup.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The business plan is dated September 2022, after the petition filing date.”
“the record does not support such a resolution that would have broad impact to the occupational shortage in the United States”
“the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor appears to have limited impact to her individual patients”
“None of the articles referenced on appeal specifically identify the Petitioner and her proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“presents a new set of facts that purport to materially change the petition and, thus, cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether the prospective endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“None of the articles referenced on appeal specifically identify the Petitioner and her proposed endeavor”
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 found the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor mid-adjudication (from filling a vacant PT position to founding her own physiotherapy startup, incorporated after filing), invoking Katigbak/Izummi to refuse to consider the new business plan; decision rested entirely on prong 1 national importance, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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