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 at an unspecified U.S. healthcare facility providing patient diagnosis and treatment, educating other physical therapists, and supporting physiotherapy needs of hospitals and clinics.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“will benefit the unspecified employer -whether it is a hospital, outpatient clinic, or other medical organization-and the Petitioner's patients at that healthcare facility”
“the record does not establish how the endeavor will rise to the level of having "national or even global implications within a particular field”
“her discussion of the role of physical therapists in general and her discussion of healthcare industry trends in general do not address the "specific endeavor”
“Fill a position as a [p]hysiotherapist/[p]hysical [t]herapist that is vacant due to a large demand for physical therapists but lack of qualified physical therapists”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that, at the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner held a license to practice physical therapy in the United States, or even that she would be qualified to take an exam to obtain such a license”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the record does not establish that, at the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner held a license to practice physical therapy in the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's discussion of her qualifications and prior career accomplishments relate to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- NEW no license evidence · p2
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that national importance was met, then also affirmed the Director's independent finding that prong 2 failed (notably due to lack of evidence of U.S. licensure), expressly reserving prong 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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Endeavor was framed as generic clinical employment at an unnamed facility, lacking specifics showing effects beyond immediate employer/patients or any economic/geographic scale.
Define a concrete endeavor (specific role, setting, mechanism) and provide evidence of impact scaled beyond the immediate employer/patients, not just personal credentials.
vague
economic_growth_generic · public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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