The Petitioner, a physical therapist trained in Brazil, proposed to continue working as a physical therapist in the U.S. using her manual therapy and orthopedic/geriatric/neurological treatment methods, eventually intending to open her own physical therapy and Pilates clinic.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

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

“even if the Petitioner was able to establish a shortage of physical therapists in the United States, the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process”

“The Petitioner's proposal to fill a vacant physical therapist position at an existing healthcare facility appears to benefit the Petitioner's potential employer( s) and the clients or patients”

“the professors do not base their conclusions on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

“Her physical therapist colleagues praise many of her personal characteristics and her record of achievements without explaining the nature of the impact”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific proposal could lead to advances in the field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the professors do not base their conclusions on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “these documents indicate that the Petitioner's proposed work as a physical therapist has substantial merit, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “an individual's academic and prior employment history are material the second Dhanasar prong ... they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner initially proposed opening her own clinic but abandoned this claim in her RFE response, which the AAO noted; the AAO also declined to reach substantial merit, prong 2, or prong 3, resting dismissal solely on national importance.

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
• 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