The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a physical therapist at a U.S. healthcare facility and provide cross-border consulting services to U.S. businesses, but later revised her plan to establishing and operating a Pilates and physiotherapy clinic in Florida as CEO.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business and future clientele to impact the healthcare industry or U.S . economy more broadly”

“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections, nor does it adequately explain how the revenue and staffing projections will be realized”

“she has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area”

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence of her $300,000 investment and the capital that her investors assert they have committed to this project”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided evidence of her $300,000 investment and the capital that her investors assert they have committed”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the Petitioner's plans to establish a new company and perform services as a CEO for this entity presented after the filing date cannot retroactively establish eligibility”

  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

Notable

AAO found the Petitioner materially changed her proposed endeavor between filing and the RFE response (from physical therapist/consultant to clinic CEO), invoking the material change doctrine under Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak as an independent basis for denial, in addition to finding national importance unmet even under the revised endeavor. AAO also rejected the Petitioner's unsupported argument that the Director applied the wrong standard of proof.

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)
• 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