dismissedAPR112024_07B52032024-04-11 · appeal · Texas Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
A dentist and former clinic owner in Brazil proposed to establish a dental services organization (DSO) in the U.S. that would provide infrastructure, management, marketing, IT, tax, and financial support services to dentists and dental clinics.
Field: dentistry / dental services organization · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own proposed organization and its clients”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these forecasts were calculated.”
“she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these forecasts were calculated.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“they do not establish that the endeavor has national importance”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
1,358coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO refused to consider a revised business plan submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano's rule against accepting evidence not offered in response to an RFE. A footnote also cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) affirming that NIW adjudication is discretionary, joining several other circuits.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers