dismissedNOV102025_06B52032025-11-10 · appeal

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 university sought to employ the beneficiary as a clinical assistant professor of dentistry, teaching and clinically supervising dental students, overseeing dental care for underserved patients, and participating in a research study on barriers to dental care.

Field: dentistry / dental education · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“does not establish that [the Beneficiary's] teaching activities would impact the field of public health dentistry more broadly”

“The record establishes that the proposed endeavor may benefit the Petitioner's university, its dental school students”

“the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have other substantial positive economic effects”

“the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor would affect the shortage of dentists”

“nor does it establish that the results of that research were published and how many citations such a publication may have received”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · ignored
“Although we do not discuss each item of evidence in the record for brevity, we have reviewed the record in its entirety.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“cannot establish eligibility because they present sets of material facts that did not exist at the time the Petitioner filed the Form I-140”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“the record does not indicate that the Beneficiary has practice of conducting and publishing research projects that garner any degree of interest in the field”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“provides only one research project to which he contributed during his career”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“The survey appears to have limited research applications with empirically meaningful data.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Citations insufficient · p1 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

271coded 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

The petitioner is the beneficiary's own employing university. The AAO rejected two pieces of evidence submitted on appeal (a fellowship-induction letter and a list of clinical supervisees) as post-filing facts under Katigbak/Izummi, and separately found a supporting research questionnaire of only 28 dental students to have limited empirical value, partly because it omitted student-identifying columns needed to verify uniqueness of respondents.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Ho
Matter of Izummi
Matter of Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer