dismissedAPR272023_06B52032023-04-27 · 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.
The Petitioner, a dentist, initially proposed to work as a healthcare professional in dentistry, and later, in response to an RFE, proposed instead to establish and serve as CEO of a dental clinic in Florida.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we consider the claim that the business plan helps establish eligibility as of the time of filing to be abandoned”
“None of the writers describe in detail the proposed endeavor or its potential impact.”
“there is a national shortage of dentists in the United States, that Brazil's dentists are "among the best in the world,"”
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the dental industry overall”
“this evidence again relates to the dental industry overall and to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor”
“he offers little corroborative evidence or explanation to support his claims”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Subsequent developments or events in the career cannot retroactively establish that he was already eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“None of the writers describe in detail the proposed endeavor or its potential impact.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this evidence again relates to the dental industry overall and to the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded 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 expressly declined to reach EB-2 threshold eligibility and Dhanasar prongs 2-3, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1; it treated the Petitioner's post-filing business plan (proposing to become CEO of a dental clinic) as an abandoned, untimely subsequent career development rather than evidence of the endeavor as of filing.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his