The Petitioner, a physical therapist, sought to work in the U.S. providing patient care and healthcare management services, training other professionals, and helping address a perceived healthcare workforce shortage.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the documentation in the record does not provide insight as to how the Petitioner intends to impact the field or the economy more broadly as an individual working as either a physical therapist or as a manager in a healthcare setting.”

“she does not explain how her work will address a national talent shortage or affect the fields ofphysical therapy or healthcare management or otherwise have a positive impact on entities outside of that of her immediate employer or patients.”

“The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the authors do not identify specific tactics or processes that the Petitioner herself developed”

“The Petitioner has not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an individual working in a physical therapy occupation.”

“The record does not establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not clarify how the Petitioner's qualifications as a physical therapist show that she is well positioned to advance an endeavor of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner's description of her endeavor is vague and includes aspirations that far exceed the normal duties and responsibilities of an individual physical therapist”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an individual working in a physical therapy occupation.”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

Where this case turned

• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO discussed prong 1 (national importance) even though it was not dispositive, explicitly stating it did so 'to inform the Petitioner' for future NIW proceedings, before resolving the appeal on prong 2 grounds.

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.

• 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