dismissedOCT102023_06B52032023-10-10 · 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, planned to operate her own clinic providing physical therapy and pulmonary/respiratory rehabilitation services, initially managing operations before working directly with patients.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
“We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of professionals in her field.”
“she has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its trainees or clientele to impact her field”
“she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence”
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 - other · discounted
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
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
AAO found substantial merit was established but national importance was not, illustrating the two-part nature of prong 1; the Petitioner's shortage argument and job-creation projections were both explicitly rejected.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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