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/orthodontist trained abroad, sought to work in the United States providing dental treatment and surgery, ultimately as a dental surgeon in a dental practice.
Field: dentistry/orthodontics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's profession (dentist/DDS/DMD) customarily requires a doctoral degree, so combination of bachelor's plus five years' experience cannot substitute; foreign credential evaluations did not establish equivalency to a U.S. DDS or DMD degree, and Petitioner's own statements acknowledged he lacked the necessary U.S. licensure credentials at filing.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor, treating patients in a dental surgery practice, rises to the level of national importance”
“he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“by his own admission he lacks the academic credentials required for obtaining a license to practice dentistry in the United States”
“The record does not reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his dental practice”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“insufficient to establish that the Petitioner holds the foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. DDS or DMD degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“did not establish that they had at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he is not qualified to work as a dentist in the United States”
AAO decision text - media · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO explicitly treats the threshold advanced-degree failure, Prong 1 failure, and Prong 2 failure as three independent and alternate bases for dismissal; also notes Petitioner's own letters conceding he had not yet obtained U.S. licensure requirements.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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