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 advising multinational companies and U.S. healthcare institutions on cross-border physical therapy business and clinical matters, then later proposed opening and operating her own physiotherapy clinic in Florida providing patient care and rehabilitation services.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional due to unresolved inconsistencies in employment letters regarding full-time vs. part-time work and insufficient evaluator analysis of foreign education equivalency. AAO also found the evidence insufficient to establish exceptional ability, concluding only one of three criteria the Director had found satisfied were actually met, including invalid/expired license and identity card documentation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific or consistent proposed endeavor”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“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."”
“has not demonstrated how the prospective economic activity the proposed endeavor would generate rises to the level of affecting the U.S. economy”
“she has not established how these benefits will impact the field of physical therapy, reach beyond her clinic and patients, or rise to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“generalized conclusions are insufficient to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently established that she has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the document's validity expired in March 2019, prior to the filing of the petition in May 2019”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“We conclude that the Petitioner has significantly changed her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
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
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte on de novo review, identifying material inconsistencies between employment letters (claiming full-time work) and the ETA 750 (declaring part-time work at two concurrent jobs plus a third teaching job), raising credibility concerns under Matter of Ho. AAO also found the Petitioner impermissibly and materially changed her proposed endeavor between the initial filing (multinational consulting/cross-border advising) and the RFE response (opening a Florida physiotherapy clinic), citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. regarding impermissible material changes in response to an RFE.
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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify a specific, consistent proposed endeavor (shifting from cross-border consulting to a Florida clinic) and failed to show that endeavor's impact extended beyond her own clients/business to national scale.
Fix the endeavor's description before filing and after RFE; support national-importance claims with specific, corroborated, scaled evidence—not generalized letters about personal skill or field importance.
vague
public_health · economic_job_creation · field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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