dismissedJUL082024_15B52032024-07-08 · appeal · Texas Service Center
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, initially proposed to work as a dental clinician, teach, or work with the government to improve oral health care in the United States; she later shifted to proposing ownership of three dental clinics in economically depressed areas.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific dental services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clinics or patients”
“The evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor did not include a financial analysis, staffing projection, or other evidence of economic impact”
“the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor has national importance, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating as the owner and CEO of multiple dental clinics”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor... rather than the importance of dentists and the dental industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- degree · credited
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO declined to consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor (from clinician to clinic owner/CEO) raised only in response to the RFE, citing Matter of Izummi/Bardouille's prohibition on considering post-filing facts, and evaluated only the original, less developed endeavor.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- 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