The Petitioner initially proposed to work as a physical therapist at a U.S. healthcare facility and possibly teach other physical therapists, but later stated in response to an RFE that she intended to found and serve as CEO of her own cardiopulmonary/at-home rehabilitation services company.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we find that the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to her proposed endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not provided a specific or consistent proposed endeavor activity such that we can determine its national importance”

“a shortage alone would not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”

“none of the documents submitted establish that the benefits of working as a physical therapist or an instructor in a healthcare facility... would extend beyond her patients, employers, and students in a manner that could be considered of national importance”

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

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The Petitioner's new plan in the RFE reply... describe a new set of facts... and thus cannot retroactively establish eligibility.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “his findings stem from the significance of the physical therapy profession in general... The letter therefore does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed U.S. work.”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “an individual's academic and prior employment history are material [to] the second Dhanasar prong... they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which the individual will work”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO treated the Petitioner's shift from an initial endeavor (working as/teaching physical therapists) to a new endeavor (founding her own rehabilitation company as CEO) presented in the RFE response as an impermissible material change under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, and evaluated only the original, unamended endeavor on appeal, finding it too vague and insufficiently national in scope to satisfy prong one. The AAO expressly declined to reach prongs two and three.

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 E-M-
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• 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