The Petitioner, an orthodontist with dental clinic ownership experience, proposed to open his own dental clinic in Massachusetts serving communities with limited access to dental care, later expanding to partner with other dentists nationally.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the report is six years old and analyzes the U.S. workforce generally”

“It does not provide any information about the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in the field of dentistry.”

“when determining national importance, we examine the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, rather than focusing on the importance of the industry or profession”

“The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”

“The record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.”

“she does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective impact on the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework...The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “many of these reports are not specific to the field of dentistry”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “the Petitioner's claimed full-time experience overlapped in years, including experience he claimed was gained in multiple locations in Brazil and in the United States during the same period”

  AAO decision text
• funding · ignored

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
• 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

AAO addressed and rejected Petitioner's due process claim, citing lack of authority to entertain constitutional challenges and no showing of substantial prejudice. AAO also noted in a footnote that even if it reached prongs 2 and 3, it would still have dismissed the appeal, referencing the Director's unrebutted finding of overlapping/inconsistent work experience claims (Brazil and U.S. simultaneously) as relevant to prong 2.

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(k)(2)
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

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