The Petitioner, a physiotherapist trained in Brazil, proposed to continue working as a physiotherapist in the United States, treating patients with sports and orthopedic injuries and offering specialized training sessions to other physiotherapists.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the performance of duties of a physiotherapist on a broad level, even successfully or competently, do not implicate matters rising to a level of national importance”

“What can be concluded from the record is that the performance of duties of physiotherapist would benefit only the company employing the Petitioner”

“the evidence in the record does not identify any hiring plans or any locality or economically depressed area that could benefit from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

“activities which only benefit a single employer would not rise to a level of national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”

“The record simply does not reflect any progress to achieving the proposed endeavor”

“the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed”

“the business plan instead only placed heavy emphasis on what the Petitioner had done in their past and their qualifications to continue the same activities in the future”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“the record does not contain sufficient evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the letters did not contain a sufficient specific description of the duties the Petitioner performed”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these letters represent noteworthy achievements and significant contributions”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan instead only placed heavy emphasis on what the Petitioner had done in their past and their qualifications to continue the same activities in the future”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• 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
• Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• 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
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• Urgency not established · p3 — no reason shown why the benefit cannot wait for labour certification
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

The AAO reached the merits of all three Dhanasar prongs and the categorical EB-2 eligibility issue as independent, alternative grounds for dismissal, despite the Director having ruled only on the national interest waiver; also flagged a material discrepancy in the dates on a submitted identity card (issuance dates differed between front and back of the document) as undermining its reliability and authenticity.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of Y-B-
• 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