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 and adjunct professor, proposed to open a dental clinic in Florida offering general dental services, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and related care to children, adults, and the elderly, with the Petitioner serving as both CEO and dental surgeon.
Field: dentistry, oral and maxillofacial surgery, traumatology, clinical stomatology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO both agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; threshold EB-2 was not at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record is not supported by independent and objective evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work has potential implications that are of national importance to the U.S.”
“the Petitioner had not established that his endeavor will have a broader impact on the field 'outside of his prospective company and/or clients.'”
“the record contains little information concerning any specific research projects.”
“the record 'lacks details about the specific areas to be researched, the objectives of conducting research, and how it will be funded and accomplished.'”
“Simply having the potential to employ U.S. workers does not rise to the requisite standard in Dhanasar that mandates the potential to be significant.”
“the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 'aims to advance STEM technologies or research' or that it would have an 'impact in a STEM field more broadly to establish its national importance.'”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner had not established that his endeavor will have a broader impact beyond his company and clients after reviewing the evidence.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“we consider a petitioner's expertise and education under Dhanasar's second prong, which 'shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national.'”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 'aims to advance STEM technologies or research' or that it would have an 'impact in a STEM field more broadly.'”
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
- 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
Notable
The AAO noted a procedural inconsistency: the Director's RFE apparently indicated the Petitioner had met Dhanasar's second prong, but the denial found he had not, without explanation. The AAO reserved judgment on prongs 2 and 3 and indicated it would remand for Director review of those prongs if the Petitioner overcomes the national importance issue on motion. The Petitioner also does not yet hold U.S. dental credentials and planned to hire dentists until obtaining them, which the AAO noted in describing the business plan.
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