dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physical Therapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 05, 2024 In Re: 31998569 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that a waiver 
of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements 
and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
Specifically, we concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. See id. at 889 (providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, the petitioner must establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts we erred in our evaluation of her proposed endeavor's 
potential impact to "broadly enhance societal welfare as providing highly necessary, much needed, 
and very scarce pediatric physical therapy services," contribute "to alleviating the endless wait for 
therapy," and "halt the physical decline of young Americans in underserved areas." The Petitioner 
noted that we raised questions regarding the contents of the business plan, specifically relating to 
proposed hiring and wages. She asserts that the projected salaries between the first and fifth year of 
her company's operation are vastly different because she expects her medical services and business 
operations will significantly improve over five years as a result of her professional skill and demand 
for pediatric physical therapy. The Petitioner reiterates that the previously submitted evidence 
indicates other physical therapists have recognized her proposed endeavor has national importance 
and argues that though her plan to operate a mobile physical therapy company is not novel or unique, 
the fact that there are existing similar operations shows there are insufficient providers to service 
pediatric patients. 
In our prior decision, we addressed the relevant evidence and determined it did not demonstrate any 
broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in her field at a level of national 
importance. See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential 
prospective impact" and "broader implications"). We acknowledged the Petitioner's plan to employ 
five workers but explained the record did not establish her specific proposed endeavor's significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or have a substantial positive economic effect. See id. at 890 ("An 
endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, ... may well be understood to have 
national importance."). On motion, the Petitioner does not cite any specific error in our application of 
Dhanasar or specify any other legal error or misapplication of policy in these determinations. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2