Healthcare: physical therapy
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner met only one of the ten criteria, fewer than the three required.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A physical therapist appealed a Texas Service Center denial of an EB-1A petition, having met only the published-material criterion. On appeal he claimed original contributions, a leading or critical role, and a high salary. The AAO found his patient-assessment software tool had not been shown to have major significance, and although it found he held a leadership role at his company, it did not find that the company has a distinguished reputation. The salary criterion was reserved and the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (ii) Membership requiring outstanding achievement | Not reached | But, because the Petitioner does not challenge those two findings on |
| (iii) Published material about the person | Met | The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner submitted evidence of published material |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his original contribution has major significance in his field. |
| (vii) Display at exhibitions or showcases | Not reached | But, because the Petitioner does not challenge those two findings on |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not met | The Petitioner's evidence demonstrated his performance in a leading role but not that his organization |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Not reached | We therefore need not reach and hereby reserve |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The AAO agreed with the Director that the record supported only one criterion, published material, leaving the petitioner short of the three needed for a final merits determination.
- The petitioner's downloadable assessment tool was not shown to have major significance in the field: the single short article did not state its source and suggested a team effort, and the usage data did not define what a view meant.
- Contrary to the Director, the AAO found evidence of a leadership role at the company he founded, but the firm's distinguished reputation was not shown, given that it was relatively young and the record lacked later media coverage.
- The high-salary criterion was reserved, and the membership and display criteria were treated as waived because the petitioner did not challenge the Director's findings.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012)
- Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-cv-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019)
- Branski v. Seng, No. 24-CV-360, 2024 WL 4678939 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 4, 2024)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary