The Petitioner, a physical therapist, planned to continue working as a physical therapist in U.S. hospitals and home care, specializing in Thermography and working in neurology, orthopedics, athlete rehabilitation, gerontology, and lecturing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record does not indicate, however, that she created or significantly innovated any of these techniques or has made other contributions with national or even global implications in the field of physical therapy.”

“our assessment of national importance does not center on issues affecting a field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the Petitioner does not submit evidence of how her work would impact public health beyond her treatment of individual patients on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“J-A- also did not discuss, and the Petitioner did not submit evidence of, any financial plan or forecast of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor indicating that her work would have other substantial economic effects”

“While J-A- discusses the importance of the physical therapy profession, he does not specify how the Petitioner's work with individual patients would have a broader impact in her field.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “While J-A- discusses the importance of the physical therapy profession, he does not specify how the Petitioner's work with individual patients would have a broader impact in her field.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The record does not indicate, however, that she created or significantly innovated any of these techniques or has made other contributions with national or even global implications”

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

Notable

AAO cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) for the proposition that NIW grant/denial is discretionary, joining other circuits on this point.

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(k)(2)
• 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