dismissedMAY232023_04B52032023-05-23 · 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 with 19 years of experience, initially proposed to work as a physical therapist at a U.S. healthcare facility, but later, in response to an RFE, asserted she intended to open and operate her own physiotherapy clinic in Florida.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the shortage of physical therapists does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“Although she stresses the importance of physical therapists, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show any benefits”
“Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating a physical therapy clinic”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective patients”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of opening and operating a physical therapy clinic”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- 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
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 refused to consider the Petitioner's changed endeavor (from prospective employee physical therapist to clinic owner) raised in response to the RFE, citing Izummi/Bardouille's rule against considering post-filing changed facts; this materially changed endeavor issue was treated as an independent basis alongside the substantive national importance failure.
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 Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- 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