Petitioner initially proposed to work in the United States as an endodontist, but later, in response to an RFE, claimed her endeavor was to become an entrepreneur owning and operating a business training dental assistants.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it was this change in her proposed endeavor from an individual performing services as an endodontist to that of an entrepreneur owning a business chiefly training dental assistants... that added significant ambiguity to her proposed endeavor such that we were unable to determine its substantial merit and national importance.”

“such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process.”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

“the supporting documentation does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work as an endodontist would sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · credited
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not explain the national importance of working as an endodontist”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored
• business plan · discounted

  “materially changed her initial proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the brief does not assert new facts and no new evidence was submitted on motion”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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

On motion, the AAO reversed its own prior finding regarding underlying EB-2 eligibility (recognizing the Brazilian dental degree as an advanced-degree equivalent based on previously overlooked evidence) but still dismissed the motions because the NIW prong-one deficiency—material change of endeavor from endodontist to entrepreneur under Matter of Izummi—remained dispositive.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of Izummi

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