The Petitioner alternately described her proposed endeavor as working as a 'Medical Scientist' conducting dental-related research and as opening/operating a dental clinic in the United States, without reconciling the two.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the prospective research in the dental field that she intends to conduct”

“Without sufficient detail, we cannot accurately analyze the proposed endeavor to determine if it has substantial merit or national importance under the first prong.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“Therefore, we conclude that she meets neither the first nor second prong”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“she has not established, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “she does not explain how the evidence of her planned dental practice relates to this endeavor”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “The Petitioner has not resolved the discrepancies in the record regarding her proposed endeavor.”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Endeavor too vague · p2 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

AAO dismissed the appeal primarily because the Petitioner never resolved a fundamental inconsistency between two entirely different proposed endeavors (medical scientist/researcher vs. dental clinic operator/entrepreneur) despite two RFEs; the decision treats this as a threshold definitional failure that forecloses meaningful analysis of any Dhanasar prong, framing the change as a potential impermissible 'material change' to the petition under Matter of Izummi.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.3
• Matter of Ho
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of Katigbak
• Poursina v. USCIS

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