The Petitioner, a physical therapist, initially proposed working at a healthcare facility, then shifted to opening and operating her own physiotherapy business in Florida and advising multinational companies on cross-border healthcare contracts and investments.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We conclude that the Petitioner has not identified a specific or consistent proposed endeavor.”

“The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business in Florida existed at the time of filing.”

“We further conclude that the Petitioner has significantly and materially changed her initially described proposed endeavor.”

“The record does not suggest that the Petitioner's patient care duties would meet the current demand for physical therapy, address the national physical therapist shortage, or otherwise operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

“it largely relates to the importance of the physical therapy profession or field, rather than the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”

“we nevertheless conclude that the evidence does not demonstrate how five jobs and $268,404 in payroll expenses would confer benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy reaching the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business in Florida existed at the time of filing.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it largely relates to the importance of the physical therapy profession or field, rather than the national importance of a specific proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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

Notable

The AAO emphasized that the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor in the NOID response (from working at a healthcare facility to owning a business and advising multinational companies), invoking the rule against material changes to a petition after filing (citing Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.) as an independent basis for denial alongside the national importance failure.

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. 103.2(b)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Izummi
• 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