This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
A Brazilian physiotherapist sought to work as a physical therapist for a U.S. health care facility, possibly teach new physical therapists, and eventually open her own physical therapy clinic treating orthopedic, trauma, and athletic patients.
Field: physical therapy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record lacks evidence that her specific endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area."”
“she has not explained how her employment by an established clinic would provide substantial economic benefits to the United States or an economically depressed U.S. region.”
“the professor does not base that conclusion on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Rather, his finding stems from the significance of the physical therapy profession”
“without evidence of broader implications for the country or the physical therapy field, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's specific proposal rises to the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“she has not indicated that she would introduce this methodology or others to the United States.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the professor does not base that conclusion on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's willful-misrepresentation finding and found substantial merit met, but affirmed denial solely on national importance, illustrating a split outcome within the prong 1 analysis; the AAO expressly declined to reach the Director's threshold eligibility finding, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show her specific endeavor (not just the PT profession generally) had national-level effects—no evidence of clinic's economic scale, region, employment, or field-wide methodology adoption.
Quantify the specific endeavor's projected scale (jobs, revenue, region, field-wide adoption); generic profession-level importance or personal skill testimonials are insufficient.
vague
economic_job_creation · public_health · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement
person_focused
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