A Brazilian-trained physical therapist initially proposed to work at a U.S. healthcare facility providing patient treatment and possibly teaching new physical therapists; in response to an RFE she instead proposed to found and run her own home-healthcare/post-rehabilitation services company in Florida.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We conclude that the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

“A shortage of physical therapists in the United States does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's revised proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact either the physical therapy or home healthcare industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”

“The Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to meet her burden of proof.”

“she has not shown that her company's business activity stands to provide substantial economic benefits”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner's business plan provides a generalized description of the company's marketing and growth strategy... there is no explanation... of the origins of those case estimates and business expenses”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “there is no evidence present in the record that elaborates on any investment potential generated by the Petitioner's business proposal”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner provides material related to the importance of hiring employees in the United States in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO treated the shift from 'working for a healthcare facility' to 'founding and operating her own company' in RFE response as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, and separately found even the original and revised endeavors both failed national importance, comparing the case to the teaching activity in Dhanasar itself.

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)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
• The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
• The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
• The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
• The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his