dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 In Re: 30339567 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physical therapist and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, 
as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
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 Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director did not make a finding on whether the Petitioner qualified for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The 
Director's decision focuses entirely on the issue of the national interest waiver and includes no 
determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification. Because we nevertheless 
find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a 
labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the 
Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 stated in her business plan that her proposed endeavor is to operate and manage a clinic 
inl IFlorida, that will provide tailor-made physiotherapy services as well as specialized Pilates 
and N eo Pilates courses. She also indicated she will assist individuals in "maintaining and preserving 
their health, overall well-being and promoting health-conscious behavior," and her clinic will provide 
respiratory and neurological physiotherapy for patients suffering from Covid-19. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a physical therapist improving the 
health of others has substantial merit but not national importance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar' s analytical framework. 2 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As it relates to the 
Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the third prong of Dhanasar. 
2 
importance of physical therapy, small businesses, and entrepreneurism. Further, "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. The broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us of the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed solely through a 
geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed endeavor's 
geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications apply beyond 
just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In 
Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. We recognize the 
overall value of providing physical therapy services; however, the evidence does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the 
organization and clients she would serve, or that her proposed work would otherwise have broader 
implications for the healthcare industry or initiatives. For example, the record does not establish the 
Petitioner has plans to introduce novel methodologies or medical advancements that may be 
disseminated to or adopted by others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate how she 
will contribute to research and development of our nation's physical therapy services. Although the 
petitioner stated in her business plan that she will train new professionals in N eo Pilates, an exercise 
method that integrates conventional Pilates techniques, functional training, and circus arts, she does 
not explain if this exercise method is unavailable in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner does 
not indicate the breakdown of time spent providing physical therapy services and providing training 
in Neo Pilates at her clinic to understand the overall impact of training. Here, the record does not 
show through supporting documentation how her specific company that provides physical therapy 
services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner's business plan makes various financial projections 
but has not offered evidence to corroborate the contents. The business plan makes various projections 
that the company will purportedly achieve in five years, such as increasing the sales forecast from 
$780,000 in year one to $1,565,000.00 by year five. In addition, the business plan stated the company 
will have 6 employees in year one that will increase to 11 employees by year five. However, the plan 
does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these projections, or adequately explain how these 
sales and staffing targets will be realized. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient 
evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) that projected 
that in the next five years the Petitioner's company will "indirectly sustain an additional 106 jobs, 
spanning part-time and full-time positions." However, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 106 
indirect jobs a RIMS II calculation anticipates her company will create, such as the type of jobs those 
would be, the breakdown of part-time versus full-time positions, and where they would be created. 
Without more detailed, credible evidence of the types ofjobs that would be created and where the jobs 
would be located, the record does not establish that employing the positions listed in the business plan 
and indirectly creating 106 unspecified jobs at unspecified locations, would show the type of 
substantial positive economic effects, and whether the effects would be particularly in an economically 
depressed area, contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889-90. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4