The Petitioner proposed to continue working in the United States as an exercise physiologist, disseminating expertise in exercise and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries and creating tailored exercise programs for healthy and vulnerable populations.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his customers and employers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance”

“The Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“Without evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “The authors additionally underscore the economic growth potential of the healthcare and sports medicine industry and predict...significant economic benefits”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

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
• 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

AAO expressly reserved the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree eligibility question and prongs 2-3 because the prong 1 national importance failure was dispositive; industry-shortage and job-creation arguments were rejected as focusing on the field/industry rather than the specific endeavor.

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)
• 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