The Petitioner, a physical therapist, sought to provide physical therapy services in the United States that she characterized as promoting the national interest, without further specifics detailed in the decision.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · ignored

  “The Petitioner does not explain the relevance of this evidence.”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision resolves a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO summary dismissal of the appeal; the AAO did not substantively re-analyze the Dhanasar prongs on the merits, instead finding the Petitioner failed to identify legal/factual errors or submit new facts, per the procedural motion standards. A footnote notes an unexplained factual inconsistency: the Petitioner submitted evidence of coursework completed in the Philippines despite USCIS records showing no travel outside the U.S. since her 2019 entry.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of O-S-G-

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