dismissedOCT062025_01B52032025-10-06 · appeal
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 Beneficiary, an art/rehabilitation therapist at a mental health hospital for forensically committed patients, sought to continue delivering recovery-oriented treatment and, after completing a doctorate, to mentor therapists, develop new programs, and apply her research to improve treatment protocols.
Field: art therapy / rehabilitation therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed the Beneficiary qualified as an advanced degree professional based on her MA in art therapy.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“Nor does the letter demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner and its patients to impact the behavioral therapist field or U.S. economy more broadly”
“she did not explain the research she is performing, how it applies to her proposed endeavor, and how its application would have national or even global implications within her field”
“without evidence supporting these assertions, the letters do not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her patients to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this type of evidentiary support relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework and shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner does not identify how SCOPS incorrectly analyzed the Beneficiary's eligibility.”
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
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 cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) alongside other circuits to affirm that NIW grants are discretionary, an unusual explicit circuit-court citation in a non-precedent decision.
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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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