dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 11, 2024 InRe : 31639374 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physical therapist, 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 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 matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 
If 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 
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 unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that she holds the equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree 
and over five years of progressive experience in physical therapy. She thus qualifies for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(stating a foreign equivalent of a United States baccalaureate degree followed by at least five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree). The 
only issue on appeal is whether she qualifies for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in 
the national interest. 
In her professional plan, the Petitioner states she will continue to work as a physical therapist in the 
United States in hospitals and home care. The Petitioner states she will specialize in Thermography 
and work in the areas of neurology, orthopedics, athlete rehabilitation, gerontology, and lecturing. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed 
area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within 
the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have broader 
implications in her field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "her contributions extend beyond routine physical therapy, 
encompassing specialized techniques such as Dry Needling, Thermography, and participation in the 
study group of the McKenzie Method in Brazil." The Petitioner submitted letters from three 
colleagues praising her work with these techniques. The record does not indicate, however, that she 
created or significantly innovated any of these techniques or has made other contributions with 
national or even global implications in the field of physical therapy. See id. at 889 ( citing improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or global implications within a 
particular field). 
The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor has national importance because it "aligns with the 
current trend of return-to-work programs in American companies" and "the broader goal of fostering 
2 
I 
a healthier workforce and reducing the economic burden associated with chronic illnesses and 
injuries." The Petitioner asserts her work addresses public health issues such as the opioid epidemic, 
pain associated with pregnancy, pediatric health, chronic pain, and the rehabilitation of COVID-19 
patients. The Petitioner claims her proposed endeavor aligns with the Primary Health Services 
Enhancement Act, a Congressional bill introduced in September 2021 which aims to enhance access 
to physical therapy services. We acknowledge the role physical therapy may play in addressing these 
public health issues. However, our assessment of national importance does not center on issues 
affecting a field or occupation in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Id. Here, the Petitioner does not submit evidence of how her work 
would impact public health beyond her treatment of individual patients on a level commensurate with 
national importance. Cf id. at 892 ( citing media articles and other evidence documenting 
Congressional interest in Dhanasar's research). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from J-A-2, a contributing faculty member at the 
I expressing his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. J-A­
states the Petitioner's work has national importance because "[p]]hysical therapy plays an important 
role in improving quality of life." J-A- further states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will "broadly 
enhance societal welfare or cultural enrichment" because "[p ]hysical therapists play vital roles in 
today's health care environment" and physical therapy allows seniors to continue living life to the 
fullest extent. While J-A- discusses the importance of the physical therapy profession, he does not 
specify how the Petitioner's work with individual patients would have a broader impact in her field. 
Again, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of a field or occupation 
in general, but instead "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor will have a significant economic impact because she will 
enhance the quality of services offered in physical therapy, a 34-billion-dollar industry. J-A- also 
claims the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ United States workers 
and has other substantial positive economic effects because the physical therapy industry was valued 
at 33.0 billion dollars in 2021. However, the Petitioner states she will work in home care or at hospitals 
and does not indicate that she would employ any other individuals. J-A- also did not discuss, and the 
Petitioner did not submit evidence of, any financial plan or forecast of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor indicating that her work would have other substantial economic effects on a level of national 
importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. See id. at 890 (discussing substantial economic effects). 
In Dhanasar, we determined that 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. Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond her 
individual patients to impact the physical therapy field more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
Although the relevant evidence establishes the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, 
it does not demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have significant potential to employ 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the individual referenced. 
3 
U.S. workers, other substantial positive economic effects, national or even global implications within 
the field, or other broader implications indicating national importance. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and she 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4