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 speech language pathologist, proposed to work with a health care facility or school providing expert diagnostic and treatment services to patients; a later-submitted business plan reframed the endeavor as directing an interdisciplinary therapy business.
Field: speech language pathology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner established a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree but failed to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; employment/recommendation letters were contradictory, lacked firsthand knowledge, or came from non-employers, and did not meet 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) requirements.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
“there is no evidence that jobs will be created as she will be serving as a speech pathology therapist in health care facilities or in schools.”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”
“The record also does not show how her proposed endeavor would impact more than her direct clients.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not meet the requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) and do not establish qualifying experience.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“It is not clear that [he] had firsthand knowledge of her duties since he stated that they rarely worked on cases together.”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“they do not prove the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO found the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree requirement independently unmet (contradictory experience letters), but rested its dismissal on the dispositive Prong 1 failure, expressly declining to reach the remaining Dhanasar prongs under Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C-. It also invoked the Matter of Izummi material-change doctrine to disregard the post-RFE business plan reframing the endeavor.
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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