dismissedMAY232024_02B52032024-05-23 · 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 proposed to operate a mobile physical therapy and rehabilitation services company, using an outfitted RV to treat elderly, orthopedic, and neurological patients who lack hospital access, while also offering professional training webinars to colleagues.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner does not provide support for these assertions, nor does the evidence on record establish that her endeavor will directly result in broader implications”
“a claimed shortage of professionals alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“neither the letters or the expert opinion provide specific examples of how her work would influence the physical therapy industry broadly”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“her prior experience does not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a claimed shortage of professionals alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance of an endeavor.”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- 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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 was found dispositive, and rejected reliance on the DOL Schedule A physical-therapist shortage designation, noting that benefit runs to the employer rather than a broader U.S. interest.
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(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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