The Petitioner, a physiotherapist, proposed to establish a health and wellness clinic business in Florida, serving as its chief physiotherapy officer and clinic manager, with planned expansion to other underutilized business communities.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field”

“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

“While we recognize that a shortage of physical therapists demonstrates substantial merit of a proposed endeavor, it does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important”

“without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties ... would impact the physical therapy field more broadly, rather than benefiting her business and her clients”

“Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 43 jobs ... rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the content of these letters relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, instead of speaking to the national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain or provide evidence showing how she intends to develop and research new treatment methodologies”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”

  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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• 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 found the underlying EB-2 advanced degree classification satisfied even though the Director's decision had not addressed it. The decision reserved prongs two and three entirely, resolving the appeal solely on national importance, and explicitly distinguished the shortage-of-workers argument as a matter for the labor certification process rather than the NIW national-importance analysis.

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 D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers