The Petitioner, a physiotherapist and ergonomist, proposed to continue providing physiotherapy assessments, examinations, and treatments to clients and companies in clinics, long-term care facilities, and other settings, and to develop ergonomics training materials for employees.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not demonstrated that his work will broadly enhance societal welfare in the U.S.”

“benefits that are isolated to a single institution or locality in the U.S. might be so attenuated at the national level as to preclude a determination that the proposed endeavor is of national importance”

“the record was not supported by sufficient independent and objective evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's work has potential implications of national importance”

“the authors focus primarily on their previous experiences with the Petitioner and his work ethic, but they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“this material did not focus on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor, but instead focused on the industry as a whole”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · discounted

  “they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “did not focus on the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor, but instead focused on the industry as a whole”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “he did not provide a detailed description explaining the manner through which he will prospectively deliver physiotherapy services”

  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
• Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO expressly adopted and affirmed the Director's prong-one analysis under the Burbano doctrine and declined to reach the third prong as unnecessary given the dispositive prong-one failure.

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
• Chen v. INS
• 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