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, proposed to continue work in the dental field—via consulting services and later a dental practice with multiple offices in Florida—to increase access to and improve oral health care for underprivileged and low-income communities.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner established EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“the record does not establish that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“The Petitioner has not otherwise provided evidence that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed”
“the record establishes the impact is limited to the Petitioner's company and his prospective clients”
“the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 'national importance' element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan discusses how the Petitioner plans to operate his business, providing dental healthcare services to clients”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact on the industry”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the record does not include an in-depth proposal ... for us to analyze from a tax perspective”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found the endeavor had substantial merit but not national importance; found the Director's 'material change' concern moot by analyzing the new business plan as the vehicle for the original endeavor anyway. AAO reserved prongs two and three as unnecessary, citing INS v. Bagamasbad on agencies not needing to make purely advisory findings.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner conflated importance of the dental/oral health field generally with the specific endeavor's impact; failed to show his particular business would broadly affect the industry or economy beyond his own clients.
Substantiate the specific endeavor's own scale of impact (jobs, region, tax revenue, industry-wide effect) with objective evidence, not just field-level importance or personal credentials.
moderate
economic_job_creation · public_health · government_interest · geographic_or_shortage_area
person_focused
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