dismissedMAY252021_01B52032021-05-25 · 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, a physical therapist, proposed to operate her own startup company in New Jersey providing preventative and rehabilitation physical therapy services and ergonomic consulting to companies and individuals within a 100-mile radius.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”
“It is important to note that 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 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 Petitioner has not demonstrated that the projected taxes to be paid in the next five years from 10 to 14 employees will substantially affect either New Jersey's or the United States' tax revenue”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects."”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“discussed the impact of the physical therapy field without showing the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor consistent with the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
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
- 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
The AAO explicitly reasoned that occupational shortages are addressed by the Department of Labor's labor certification process, not by the national importance prong, treating the shortage argument as effectively counterproductive to the NIW claim.
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)
- INA 291
- 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