NIW Bearings
remandedMAR302021_01B52032021-03-30 · 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, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought to continue working in the United States in the field of dentistry, orthodontics, and maxillofacial oral surgery.

Field: oral and maxillofacial surgery / dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The regulation requires a doctoral degree where one is customarily required by the specialty; the Petitioner's evaluators only equated her bachelor's degree plus experience to a doctorate, which the regulation does not permit for professions customarily requiring a doctoral degree (per the OOH, dentistry/oral-maxillofacial surgery requires a DDS/DMD plus postdoctoral residency).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the dental industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she holds the foreign equivalent degree of a DDS or DMD degree”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “Neither evaluator claims that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a doctoral degree”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the letters did not establish the progressive nature of her experience”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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

AAO withdrew the denial and remanded solely on the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree determination, finding the Director's degree analysis flawed because the regulation bars combining education and experience where a doctoral degree is customarily required; however, AAO separately agreed with the Director that the Dhanasar national-importance prong (and implicitly exceptional ability) was not met, despite not resting the outcome on that finding.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Threshold EB-2 classification failed: petitioner did not show foreign equivalent of a DDS/DMD doctoral degree required for her specialty, so advanced-degree eligibility was unresolved; case remanded on that basis, though national importance was also unmet.

Transferable lesson

For doctorate-required specialties, credential evaluators must expressly equate foreign training to the required U.S. doctoral degree (not just 'equivalent experience'), and endeavor claims must show field-wide or economic scale, not just continued practice.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_job_creation

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer