dismissedOCT162020_08B52032020-10-16 · 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 open and operate a mobile physical therapy business in Florida providing in-home rehabilitation and fall-prevention services, particularly for elderly patients.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not dispute, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business and its clientele to impact her field, the healthcare industry, or the U.S . economy more broadly”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
“this reported shortage does not render the work of an individual physical therapy business operator nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where I Mobile Physical Therapy operates is economically depressed”
“Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that the reduced healthcare costs attributable to her company' s future rehabilitation and preventative services stand to substantially affect Medicare and Medicaid savings”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“does not include evidence to corroborate the Petitioner's claim that [company] has $110,000 in funds available”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”
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
- 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
Petitioner argued that if the officer doubted her spouse's company's ability to fund the $110,000 investment, USCIS should have issued another RFE; AAO rejected this, noting RFEs are discretionary and the Petitioner had opportunity to address the issue on appeal.
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)(8)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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