dismissedMAY082024_03B52032024-05-08 · 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, a dental surgeon with over 15 years of experience, proposed to open and expand her own dental clinic in South Carolina offering personalized general and cosmetic dentistry services, with planned expansion to additional branches.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field of dental surgery on the U.S. economy beyond the clients benefiting from the Petitioner's services”
“We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's projections are unsupported by the record.”
“The record does not contain other evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will benefit underserved communities.”
“the Petitioner cited to her background and qualifications in attempt to demonstrate her proposed endeavor's national importance, but that those factors related to the second Dhanasar prong”
“Dr. I does not specify how the Petitioner's endeavor will have prospective impact on the United States, including national or global implications on dentistry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish the basis for the projected numbers in the business plan”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his opinion letter is general in nature... does not provide a substantive analysis of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“those factors related to the second Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the general articles and industry reports did not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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 discusses the HUBZone SBA program in a footnote, noting Petitioner failed to show enrollment in the program despite locating clinics in HUBZone areas; also notes the expert letter discussed research and lecturing activities not actually part of the proposed endeavor.
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
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Section 291 of the Act
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers