The Petitioner proposed to operate a pediatric physical therapy consulting firm providing trainings and early interventions for children with disabilities, aiming to improve healthcare outcomes and address a shortage of pediatric specialists.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner must establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor rather than the importance of pediatric physical therapy field.”

“We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the impact of her proposed endeavor extends beyond her future clients to impact the field of pediatric physical therapy at a level commensurate with national importance.”

“We also conclude that the Petitioner has not provided independent, corroborating evidence to support her claims that her trainings, or other work of her firm, would create broader impact on the field or economic effects.”

“She did not, for example, support these claims with evidence such as documents regarding potential partners and possible clients.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · discounted

  “physical therapists entering the occupation must have a doctor of physical therapy degree”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “did not... support these claims with evidence such as documents regarding potential partners and possible clients”

  AAO decision text

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 reserved but flagged an unaddressed threshold EB-2 issue (master's degree vs. doctorate requirement for physical therapists per OOH) as a matter the Petitioner should address in future filings, despite finding it not dispositive.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• INA 203(b)(2)

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