The petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to establish a company providing clinical physiotherapy and post-surgical rehabilitation services, including motor rehabilitation, functional training, and respiratory/cardiorespiratory physical therapy for patients in the United States.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner relies primarily on the importance of physical therapy as a valuable profession as well as the importance of physiotherapy interventions in certain medical conditions.”

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

“there is no explanation of the origins of the estimates or of how they were calculated”

“she has not provided evidence to establish that the area in which the company will operate is economically depressed”

“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “there is no explanation of the origins of the estimates or of how they were calculated”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact to the field have little probative value”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored

  “expert opinions are relied upon in determining whether an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and not in demonstrating the national importance”

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

Notable

Petitioner argued that physical therapy's status as a Schedule A Group I shortage occupation warranted 'above average importance' in adjudication; AAO rejected this occupational-shortage argument as conflating occupation-level importance with the specific endeavor. AAO also noted expert letters were misapplied to prong 1 rather than prong 2.

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
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of L-A-C-

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