dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 23, 2024 In Re: 31039955 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the physical therapy field, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). If, however, a doctoral degree is customarily required by the profession, a 
noncitizen must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, but that she did 
not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons 
set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar framework and we will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or 
education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to provide mobile physical therapy 
and rehabilitation services to U.S. patients, has substantial merit. 2 Yet, the record does not establish 
that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to operate a mobile physical therapy services company 
in the United States, primarily marketing her services to "elderly individuals, especially those suffering 
from chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's [disease]." 
According to the Petitioner's business plan, the company would operate from an outfitted Recreational 
Vehicle (RV) to target its services to patients "who need care outside the hospital and patients who do 
not have access to [ a hospital]" due to distance or mobility limitations. The Petitioner indicated that 
the company would adapt its services to provide treatments to neurological patients and "orthopedic 
patients suffering from knee, elbow, ankle, hip, rotator cuff and shoulder injuries, ligament injuries, 
osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, fractures, low back pain, scoliosis, and hip and shoulder arthroplasty." 
Additionally, the Petitioner stated the company would offer professional advice services to others in 
the field, including organizing educational webinars. While the Petitioner initially intended to operate 
in the state of Florida, she also identified Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, Montana, and Delaware as 
potential sites "where she could open additional mobile clinic[s]," specifically marketing to regions 
with higher percentages of elderly residents. 
In support of her endeavor, the record contains a definitive statement, a five-year business plan, an 
expert opinion letter, and letters of recognition from prior patients and other physical therapists and 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 While the Director does not discuss the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor in their decision, they previously 
concluded the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor in their February 24, 2023 request for 
evidence. 
2 
medical professionals attesting to her professionalism and expertise in physiotherapeutic treatments. 
The Petitioner also provided articles and industry reports discussing the physical therapy field in the 
United States, including an anticipated labor shortage of physical therapists, along with articles 
detailing the economic importance of immigrants and entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. 3 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor, as it did not show her endeavor would lead to broader implications in the field, beyond the 
direct benefits provided to her prospective patients, or otherwise result in economic benefits that would 
rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner vaguely asserts that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof 
and failed to properly consider the evidence establishing her credentials and experience in the field. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the provided industry reports and asserts these establish the national 
importance of her endeavor due to a shortage of professionals within her field, as well as a submitted 
business plan detailing the potential impact of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not directly 
address the Director's conclusions regarding the limited prospective impact of her endeavor, and 
simply maintains that the evidence on record is sufficient to demonstrate that she meets all three prongs 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director's evaluation of the evidence, and conclude 
it does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of 
operating a mobile physical therapy clinic has national importance as contemplated under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[ a ]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner asserts that her endeavor is nationally important because it "addresses the pressing issue 
of limited healthcare access ... particularly in rural regions, and areas with a shortage of physical 
therapists ... aligns with the national challenge of addressing the healthcare needs of an aging 
populations ... [and] contributes to national efforts to prioritize rehabilitation and preventive care as 
integral components of healthcare." The Petitioner also asserts that her endeavor will "provide 
3 We do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, but we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
significant sales growth potential and employment opportunities ... and enhance U[nited] S[tates] 
competitiveness in the sector." However, the Petitioner does not provide support for these assertions, 
nor does the evidence on record establish that her endeavor will directly result in broader implications 
to the field or provide sufficient contributions to these efforts beyond benefits to her prospective 
patients. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have 
little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding 
that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). Moreover, 
while we recognize the Petitioner's intent to offer training to other colleagues in the field, the Petitioner 
does not establish what, if any, broader implications this training would offer to the physical therapy 
field. In the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to 
have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's 
patients or prospective trainees would not have broader implications in the field commiserate with 
national importance. Id. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's reliance on the importance of the physical therapy field, the shortages of 
physical therapists in the United States, and the benefit of entrepreneurship and business development 
in general to assert the national importance of her endeavor is misplaced. The Petitioner asserts that 
the industry reports and articles demonstrate the national importance of her endeavor. However as 
previously discussed, when evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. The industry reports and articles do not 
discuss the Petitioner's endeavor, nor do they establish how the benefits provided to her patients would 
result in broader implications to the field. 
In addition, while the Petitioner states that her endeavor would address the shortage of professionals 
in her field, she does not explain how her employment as a physical therapist would impact this 
shortage. The Department of Labor's (DOL) has addressed the shortage of physical therapists by 
designating physical therapists as a Schedule A occupation under its regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.15, 
which allows U.S. employers to petition for noncitizen workers without first following the regulatory 
steps to test the labor market prior to filing a permanent labor certification. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17. 
Notably, filing a permanent labor certification under Schedule A requires a job offer from a U.S. 
employer as the recognized benefit is to that of the employer, not necessarily to a broader U.S. interest. 
As such, a claimed shortage of professionals alone is not sufficient to establish the national importance 
of an endeavor. 
The record also includes an expert opinion letter and support letters attesting to the Petitioner's 
education, work experience, and achievements in the physical therapy field. In particular, the expert 
opinion letter affirms the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver based on the 
Petitioner's prior accomplishments and education. It praises-without directly discussing-the 
Petitioner's advanced skills and methodologies, and emphatically asserts that her endeavor is in an 
area of substantial merit and national importance. While we recognize the Petitioner's work 
experience and contributions to her patients, neither the letters or the expert opinion provide specific 
examples of how her work would influence the physical therapy industry broadly or advance the 
interests of the physical therapy industry or the U.S. healthcare industry beyond the patients she would 
treat. More importantly, the Petitioner's expertise is relevant to Dhanasar's second prong, which 
evaluates whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor; her prior 
4 
experience does not establish that her proposed endeavor has national importance. See Dhanasar at 
888-91. 
Finally, we also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the endeavor would 
have a "a significant potential to employ U.S. workers" or otherwise reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The business plan states that, by 
its fifth year of operation, the company intends to employ 11 employees, have a total annual payroll 
expense of $583,779, and generate total annual sales of $1,299,200. Notably, however, the business 
plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections. And, even if the 
endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were properly explained and supported with evidence, 
they do not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national 
importance, as the Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue 
will impact the area of intended operations. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be 
of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements ofEB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5