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 variously claimed she would work as a medical and health services manager improving administrative efficiency at U.S. dental clinics, as the manager of her own dental business, or as a practicing dentist treating patients.
Field: dentistry / dental services management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner materially changed her proposed occupation/endeavor after filing (from medical and health services manager to business owner to dentist); did not establish 5 years progressive experience for advanced degree professional; did not hold foreign equivalent of DDS/DMD required for the profession; did not contest exceptional ability criteria findings on appeal, deemed waived.
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”
“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 the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters did not establish the progressive nature of her experience”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she holds the foreign equivalent degree of a DDS or DMD degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The evaluator does not claim that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a doctoral degree”
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
Notable
AAO found the petitioner materially changed her proposed occupation and endeavor multiple times after filing (manager -> own business owner -> dentist), invoking Matter of Izummi/Katigbak to reject retroactive eligibility. Also noted a second, separately filed I-140 NIW petition pending as of the decision date, used as evidence of her true intended occupation. NIW prong analysis was largely rendered moot by threshold EB-2 ineligibility, but AAO nonetheless briefly addressed prong 1 national importance in dicta.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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