A physical therapist assistant proposed to work with a local high school sports team, pursue a doctoral program in physical therapy, and eventually launch a physical therapy training center for recent graduates.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The record contains little explanation as to how such work would have a national impact.”

“Pre-certification due to labor shortages does not imply that the Petitioner's specific endeavor possesses national scale importance.”

“he has not substantiated the record with a detailed explanation of the methodologies and custom technique he claims to have developed”

“the Petitioner's work, which is localized to his own patients, practice, and proposed training facility, will affect the field on a national scale”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“the Petitioner does not present a cogent argument concerning it”

“he relies upon a sweeping statement that the "overall value and potential" of the Petitioner's contribution to the United States is "unequivocal,"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “we hereby decline to assign this evaluation any meaningful evidentiary weight”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “The record, as it currently stands, is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion.”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the evidence does not sufficiently establish membership in a professional association as of the time of filing”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “none of the letters establishes how the Petitioner received recognition for achievements or significantly contributed to the field”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “The record contains little explanation as to how such work would have a national impact.”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
• U.S. worker availability · p3 — the impracticality of a labour-market test was asserted, not established

Notable

AAO took the unusual step of withdrawing the Director's favorable finding on the underlying exceptional-ability classification (which the Director had granted) and instead found the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying classification at all, including flagging repeated name-spelling discrepancies across documents as casting doubt on the authenticity/veracity of the petitioner's academic and licensing records.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
• Kazarian v. USCIS
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Matter of Otiende
• 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