The Petitioner, a dental surgeon, proposed to operate a dental health and wellness business in the U.S. aimed at providing dental care and aesthetic services to address a claimed shortage of dental professionals.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The evidence provided does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance.”

“It is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance.”

“the business plan does not adequately support its projections of job and revenue creation.”

“the record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region or nation more broadly.”

“The record does not illustrate how creating 40 jobs and generating the net income as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “these articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr. [ ]'s evaluation of national importance focuses on a general discussion of the Brazilian economy”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• certification membership · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences”

  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
• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region

Notable

AAO declined to reach threshold EB-2 eligibility, prong 2, and prong 3 as prong 1 was dispositive. Footnote flags the Director's decision was internally inconsistent (finding prong 2 met but prong 3 not met, then declining to analyze either), which AAO acknowledged but did not resolve. Also noted in a footnote that the record lacked documentation regarding the Petitioner's 2021 arrest for practicing medicine without a license and drug possession, advising he address this in future filings. RFE-submitted evidence was rejected as post-filing under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12).

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
• 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