dismissedMAY262021_01B52032021-05-26 · 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.
A dental surgeon sought to practice dentistry/orthodontics, teach at various clinics, conduct patient-treatment 'research,' and open several dental clinics in the United States.
Field: dentistry/orthodontics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Determining the best course of treatment for individual patients is not research that would have any impact outside of the Petitioner's own dental practice or add to the general body of knowledge in the field.”
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual dentist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
“the Petitioner does not show that his clinics will employ enough people to have a national economic impact.”
“My work in the United States is nationally important, as dental health is extremely important to the health and well-being of the population.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that his teaching activities, which so far amount to occasional visits to other clinics, have had or will have a significant national impact on the practice of dentistry in the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“she does not specifically state that the Petitioner would practice dentistry there”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner does not show that his clinics will employ enough people to have a national economic impact”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he has not significantly distinguished himself from other dentists and dental surgeons in his specialty”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“job offer (repeatedly marked "Tentative") came to fruition”
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
- 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
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 rejected the shortage-of-dentists argument as a basis for national importance and analogized the Petitioner's occasional teaching visits to Dhanasar itself, finding they lacked the necessary national impact; decision turned entirely on prong 1, with prongs 2 and 3 expressly reserved.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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