The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his own healthcare clinic offering in-home physical therapy, speech therapy, and nursing services to underserved individuals, with plans to expand to multiple states.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the endeavor will have a measurable impact beyond the Petitioner's patients and employees to reach the level of national or even global impact.”

“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached.”

“the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that his specific endeavor would resolve the shortage or that his endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on 'the specific endeavor that the [petitioner] proposes to undertake.'”

“this is not a waiver of the job offer requirement and does not support a finding that working in the field of physical therapy inherently has national importance in the context of a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate how he will accomplish these objectives.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail regarding the basis for these projections or adequately explain how the proposed staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be reached.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the record lacks adequate corroborating evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for the country.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that his specific endeavor would resolve the shortage or that his endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits.”

  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
• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO devoted notable attention to the Petitioner's HUBZone argument, including a detailed footnote questioning whether the Petitioner — as a non-U.S. citizen — would even be eligible to participate in the SBA HUBZone program, which requires at least 51% ownership by U.S. citizens or qualifying entities. The AAO also explicitly addressed the Schedule A designation for physical therapists, clarifying that it exempts employers from labor market testing but does not constitute a national interest waiver and does not establish national importance for NIW purposes.

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 hematology-oncology fellow, proposed to conduct research on the interplay of comorbidities affecting c