The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work treating patients (including post-operative/ICU care), provide educational lectures to other professionals, and possibly operate physical therapy consulting services, while helping address a shortage of healthcare professionals.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the [P]etitioner has not established that the proposed work has implications beyond a company (or any prospective employers), business partners, alliances, and/or unidentified clients at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake."”

“the record does not establish how her individual contribution to the healthcare industry would have an appreciable effect on the economy or workforce of any particular location to amount to the type of substantial positive economic effects contemplated by Dhanasar.”

“the Petitioner's assertions both in response to the Director's RFE and on appeal present a new set of facts that cannot establish eligibility.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• resume experience · discounted

  “The Petitioner's discussion of her prior academic and work experience is immaterial to whether the proposed endeavor has national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “publications in the record containing generalized information regarding the physical therapy industry do not address how the Petitioner's specific endeavor may have the type of broader implications”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's own description of her involvement concedes that she did not invent the respirator in question”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• 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

Notable

AAO emphasized that shifting/inconsistent descriptions of the endeavor (hospital employment vs. founding a consulting company) constituted an impermissible new set of facts under Katigbak/Izummi and cast doubt under Matter of Ho, compounding the national-importance failure. The 'bringing a respirator from Brazil to the U.S.' claim was rejected because Petitioner did not invent it.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Matter of L-A-C-

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