The Petitioner, a Brazilian dental surgeon, proposed to open and operate his own dental clinics in the U.S. to provide dental consultations, diagnostic and treatment services, and to train others in the field.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Yet, the record does establish that the endeavor rises to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar.”

“in evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”

“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual dentist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision”

“the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue projections, nor does he elaborate on how the proposed employment numbers will impact the area of intended operations”

“Several of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any dental practice”

“the record does not adequately establish that increased employment in these designated underutilized business zones would have positive economic effects commensurate with national importance”

“The Petitioner has not shown that his future training activities, if any, will have a significant national impact on the practice of dentistry in the United States.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue projections”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · ignored
• degree · discounted

  “the evaluation holds little probative value in this matter”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “this shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of any clinic or clinics”

  AAO decision text
• media · discounted

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 withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 determination sua sponte on appeal despite the appeal already being dismissed on prong 1, and declined to issue an RFE on the threshold issue, instead instructing Petitioner to address it in any future filing. Also notable: AAO rejected the Petitioner's HUBZone-based national importance argument, finding no evidence the business would actually be located in a HUBZone and that the business plan itself stated he did not qualify for the HUBZone program.

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)
• Flores v. Garland
• Matter of E-M-
• Matter of L-A-C-

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