dismissedMAR252021_02B52032021-03-25 · 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 planned to start and run a physical therapy business in Florida providing clinic- and home-based physical therapy, including fall-prevention therapy for people over 55.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“she has not established that the area where the company will operate is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“the record does not establish that, beyond the benefits provided to its clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed physical therapy company is similar to any of the listed endeavors”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
2,501coded 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 acknowledges Petitioner's argument that 'significant potential to employ U.S. workers' differs from 'potential to employ a significant number of U.S. workers' but still finds the endeavor insufficient, distinguishing it from Dhanasar's research/pure science examples that need not show economic impact.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers