A dentist working at her spouse's Arizona clinic proposed to open and acquire multiple dental clinics, provide mobile dental services to rural/underserved communities, and train recent dental school graduates in clinical and business skills.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate her proposed endeavor would extend beyond her dental clinic business and patients to have a potential prospective impact on her field more broadly”

“evidence showing the shortage of qualified dental professionals does not render her endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework”

“the opinion focuses on the expected shortage of dentists in Arizona instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

“working in or establishing a business in an important field is insufficient on its own to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

“The Petitioner makes general statements about her business' potential impact on national initiatives and underserved communities but does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• other · discounted

  “The opinion does not mention the Petitioner's endeavor or explain how it is of national importance.”

  AAO decision text
• business plan · discounted

  “more evidence is needed to show her claimed "unique" business model and the potential impact of her proposed work rises to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · ignored

  “we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “her prior professional work relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

  “The reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic or societal welfare impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

AAO declined to consider an updated economist opinion report submitted for the first time on appeal, citing Matter of Soriano and the RFE notice requirement. AAO also clarified that a petitioner's prior business track record/experience is a prong-2 consideration, not relevant to prong-1 national importance, rejecting the petitioner's attempt to use her 20 years of Canadian clinic experience to establish national importance.

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
• Matter of D-R-
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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