The Petitioner, a dentist, proposed to continue working as a dentist in the United States, focusing on general dentistry and implantology, serving economically depressed areas, and promoting oral health through education and communication campaigns.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will impact more than his patients or his prospective employer”

“This establishes an impact to the Petitioner's prospective employer and his patients, but not a broader impact to the industry as is required by Dhanasar.”

“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”

“there is no information on the number of jobs or types of jobs projected”

“a shortage of qualified professionals does not render the work of an individual nationally important under Dhanasar”

“The evidence highlighted on appeal focuses on the broader field of dentistry and does not offer any specific or qualifiable economic impact”

“his plan lacks specificity”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• degree · ignored

  “we will reserve the issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “it does not speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact on the industry”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “does not offer any specific or qualifiable economic impact attributable to the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• 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
• 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

Notable

AAO expressly declined to resolve a conflict between two academic evaluations (one finding the Petitioner's foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's, the other to a U.S. doctor of dental surgery) submitted for the threshold EB-2 classification, reserving the issue since the NIW prong 1 failure was dispositive. The decision also clarifies that requiring evidence of 'critical and emerging technology' or government letters of interest is not a mandatory Dhanasar requirement but a permissible consideration under USCIS Policy Manual F.5.

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
• 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of L-A-C-

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