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 proposed to direct an online company selling ergonomic and physiotherapeutic mattresses, mats, and pillows in Florida, importing from Brazil and exporting internationally, targeting comfort and pain relief for U.S. customers.
Field: ergonomic/physiotherapeutic mattress and therapeutic products business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO reserved the exceptional-ability classification issue since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of the ergonomics field as well as the growth of the ergonomic and physiotherapy products market. However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework.”
“A local physical therapy business and a shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“there is no explanation of the origins of the estimates or of how they were calculated.”
“she has not provided evidence to establish that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area, that the area in which the company will operate is economically depressed”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“there is no explanation of the origins of the estimates or of how they were calculated”
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
Notable
AAO reserved both the underlying exceptional-ability EB-2 classification and Dhanasar prongs 2-3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure; Petitioner's argument tying endeavor to field-level importance (ergonomics) and federal health initiatives (Biden-Harris) was explicitly rejected as a misapplication of Dhanasar.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated the importance of the ergonomics/physiotherapy industry generally with the national importance of her specific local business endeavor, and provided unsupported business-plan projections rather than direct evidence of substantial regional/national economic impact.
Tie national importance claims directly and evidentially to the specific proposed endeavor's projected scale of impact, not to industry-wide trends or unverified business-plan estimates.
moderate
public_health · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · stem_positive_factor · field_advancement
mixed
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