The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed variously to work in or manage a U.S. physical therapy practice, to develop and operate her own physical therapy clinic in Florida with planned expansion to other states, and/or to advise U.S. healthcare businesses and investors on cross-border physical therapy ventures with Brazil/Latin America.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“There is no explanation, however, of the origins of those estimates or any indication of how they were calculated.”

“the record does not include documentation concerning the existence of the $600,000 in initial investment funding”

“she does not explain how her work will address a national talent shortage or affect the fields of physical therapy or healthcare management”

“her argument on appeal that labor certification requirements should be waived due to a labor shortage is not persuasive”

“As it is not clear what specific endeavor the Petitioner intends to pursue in the United States, we cannot conclude whether or not she has proposed an endeavor of national importance.”

“The evidence does not show how her work will have a positive impact on entities outside of that of her immediate employer or patients.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the letters do not identify "unique knowledge in physiotherapy" or specify an area of "expertise in physical therapy techniques"”

“reflects only the Petitioner's own description of her qualifications”

“The Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate a record of success such as published articles or media reports about her achievements or current work”

“The record does not include evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner has made progress in advancing her business”

“The record also does not contain probative evidence to support the Petitioner's statements that she has a level of expertise or access to specific resources”

“The Petitioner has not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an individual working in a physical therapy occupation.”

“The record does not establish the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Absent probative evidence to show the realistic development of the business”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “reflects only the Petitioner's own description of her qualifications”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “the record does not include documentation concerning the existence of the $600,000 in initial investment funding”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “not provided evidence of qualifications beyond those expected of an individual working in a physical therapy occupation”

  AAO decision text
• degree · credited

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
• Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
• Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
• Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
• Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
• No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
• Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish

Notable

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on prong 1 national importance (Director had found it met, citing COVID-19 economic recovery) but did not make that basis dispositive, instead resting dismissal on prong 2; AAO flagged significant inconsistencies between the Petitioner's business-plan endeavor (clinic owner) and cover-letter endeavor (advisory/consulting role) as undermining both prongs.

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
• 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