dismissedMAY042023_04B52032023-05-04 · 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 work with a healthcare facility providing patient treatment and possibly teaching new physical therapists, but later shifted to operating a physical therapy/rehabilitation business as CEO/manager with two partners.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's initial description of her proposed endeavor did not indicate plans to form a company”
“A shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“there is no indication, however, of the manner in which those sales forecasts were calculated”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections depicted”
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation.”
“she has not shown that the prospective impact of the services offered by her company represents a significant share of the physical therapy market”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections depicted”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- 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 found the petitioner impermissibly changed her proposed endeavor materially after filing (from clinical work/teaching to founding a business), citing Matter of Katigbak and Matter of Izummi, and held this alone precluded approval; it then alternatively analyzed prong 1 on the merits and found national importance lacking, declining to reach prongs 2 and 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.
- 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-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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