dismissedSEP122023_01B52032023-09-12 · 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 trained in Brazil, sought to establish and operate her own physical therapy business in California, including hiring staff, and requested a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.

Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO noted in a footnote that the Petitioner's Brazilian 'Titulo de Bacharel' degree may not establish a U.S. bachelor's equivalent, so the record does not show she qualifies as an advanced degree professional under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); however, this issue was not decided because the appeal was resolved on NIW prong 1 grounds.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“did not show that her endeavor would impact the field of physical therapy on a broader scale beyond her individual clients or that its impact would rise to the level of national importance.”

“such shortage would instead likely be viewed as a positive factor in favor of granting the labor certification a national interest waiver is not granted based upon need.”

“the lack of evidence showing that the Petitioner's endeavor would offer California or its residents a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity.”

“the report discusses the impact of physical therapists collectively rather than the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the lack of evidence showing that the Petitioner's endeavor would offer California or its residents a substantial economic benefit”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the report discusses the impact of physical therapists collectively rather than the impact of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“does not establish that the Petitioner completed four years of undergraduate study”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

2,589coded 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 adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano, and expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary once prong 1 (national importance) failed. A footnote separately flagged an unresolved threshold EB-2 degree-equivalency issue (foreign 'Titulo de Bacharel') that would need to be addressed in future proceedings.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
Chen v. INS
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer