The Petitioner, a dentist, sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver, but the merits of any proposed endeavor were never reached because the case turned entirely on a signature-validity dispute.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the submitted screenshot does not overcome the deficiencies as outlined in our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision does not address NIW eligibility or the Dhanasar prongs at all; the underlying denial and subsequent appeal/motions concerned solely whether the Petitioner's Form I-140 bore a valid signature under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(2), with the AAO finding the petitioner's newly submitted signature evidence inconsistent with the record and unpersuasive under both motion-to-reopen and motion-to-reconsider standards.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Ho

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