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 initially proposed to work in the United States as an endodontist, but in response to a subsequent RFE recast the endeavor as owning and operating a business that would train and develop foreign dental assistants nationwide.
Field: dentistry / endodontics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's finding of categorical ineligibility for EB-2 classification, noting the record was ambiguous as to whether the Petitioner's Brazilian dental degree was earned after a four- or five-year course of study, but declined to resolve this issue because the appeal was dispositive on other grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner's materially significant transformation into an entrepreneur rendered their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous.”
“It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor.”
“The Petitioner's response to the second RFE introduced a new endeavor that significantly departed from the endodontist endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their initial filing.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the company's business plan reflected that no endodontists and only dental assistants, receptionists, information clerks, and film and video editors would be employed”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The evidence in the record does not adequately establish with material, relevant, or probative evidence how long a "term" lasted”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The case turned on the Petitioner materially changing the proposed endeavor mid-adjudication—from working as an endodontist to owning an entrepreneurial dental-assistant training business—which the AAO treated as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, rendering the endeavor too ambiguous to assess for national importance. The AAO also withdrew the Director's exceptional-ability finding but left EB-2 threshold eligibility unresolved since prong one was 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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