dismissedJUL202021_06B52032021-07-20 · 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, planned to open a corporation offering a full spectrum of dental services in Florida, including a fixed office and a mobile RV clinic serving underserved communities and senior living facilities, with plans to expand to additional clinics.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we find the record does not show that the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business and its clientele to impact her field, the healthcare industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated.”
“she has not offered sufficient evidence she would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient evidence as to how”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“it does not appear that the Petitioner or her husband own either apartment”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“a shortage alone does not demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
1,312coded 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
AAO found inconsistencies in property ownership documents submitted to prove startup funding (properties in Brazil not actually owned by petitioner or husband per registration records), applying Matter of Ho inconsistency-resolution standard within the prong 1 economic-benefit analysis.
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.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers