dismissedSEP292023_02B52032023-09-29 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to work as a physical therapist and open a home health care company employing multiple physical therapists, with plans to expand into several HUBZone areas.
Field: physical therapy / home health care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor”
“There is no indication in the petition of how the Petitioner's employment as a physical therapist and his creation of new physical therapy jobs would impact this shortage on a national level.”
“he does not explain how these projected revenues would impact the physical therapy industry on a nationally important level.”
“the Petitioner does not provide a basis or supporting evidence for the business plan's projections of the company's expenses or sales”
“It is not apparent how employing 33 workers across these cities would have a substantial positive economic effect.”
“this is not a waiver of the job offer requirement and does not support a finding that working in the field of physical therapy inherently has national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide a basis or supporting evidence for the business plan's projections of the company's expenses or sales”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“It is not apparent how the endeavor's projected revenues would constitute an impact on the field.”
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 relied heavily on wage-comparison and HUBZone ownership-requirement analysis to reject economic-impact claims, noting the business plan proposed paying physical therapists 25% below the occupation's mean wage, undercutting the claim of improving U.S. worker wages.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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