dismissedSEP032024_01B52032024-09-03 · 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 dentist, sought to open a dental clinic or clinics in the U.S., claiming it would increase access to dental care, address a dentist shortage, and engage in cutting-edge dental research.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a dental entrepreneur would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her clients and employees”
“she has not identified any specific area of research, the amount of time an resources spent on that research, or how it would impact the dental field more broadly”
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage of dentists”
“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not identified any specific area of research, the amount of time an resources spent on that research”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work”
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 →
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 L-A-C-
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