NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL252023_02B52032023-07-25 · 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 dental/oral-health professional, initially proposed to work as a healthcare professional in dentistry, then, after a NOID, revised the endeavor to establishing a network of dental clinics beginning in Mississippi (in HUBZone-designated areas) and expanding to Arizona.

Field: dentistry / oral health · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO noted the Petitioner's educational equivalency was determined by combining education with work experience rather than a single-source bachelor's equivalent, raising doubt about advanced-degree eligibility, but reserved the issue since the appeal was resolved on prong 1.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it is unclear from the evidence in the record that the work of a single healthcare professional in the field of dentistry, irrespective of that proposed endeavor's success or failure, would have a significant impact on the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence.”
“the record contains insufficient documentation to support the Petitioner's projection that they would pay approximately $8,030,000 in wages to prospective future employees.”
“if in fact these shortages can be addressed by adding additional able, willing, qualified, and available international workers like the Petitioner, they would be better addressed through the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) labor certification process.”
“The Petitioner's extensive revisions raised serious questions about the true nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“we shift the focus from the importance of the field or industry within which a petitioner will work to 'the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.'”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “we shift the focus from the importance of the field or industry within which a petitioner will work to 'the specific endeavor'”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner's extensive revisions raised serious questions about the true nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “there is no evidence in the record of the Petitioner having earned the single source equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree or higher.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the record contains insufficient documentation to support the Petitioner's projection that they would pay approximately $8,030,000 in wages”
    AAO decision text

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
  • 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
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 rejected a due-process claim for lack of a specific procedural irregularity and because it lacks authority over constitutional challenges. It also flagged, without deciding, that the Petitioner's material revision of the endeavor mid-proceeding (from a job-search-like role to a new dental clinic business) raised Matter of Izummi/Katigbak concerns, and separately noted a likely threshold EB-2 defect (no single-source bachelor's equivalency) for any future filing, while reserving both issues since prong 1 alone 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. 103.2(b)(8)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer