The Petitioner, a dentist, originally proposed to work with American dental clinics using his surgery and implant experience, then after an RFE altered his endeavor to owning and serving as CEO of his own dental clinic.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not establish that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance”

“the national importance analysis focuses on the specific endeavor rather than the general analysis of the expert opinion letter regarding the industry of that endeavor”

“the Director determined that the Petitioner neither provided corroborating evidence in support of those projections nor demonstrated that this endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects for the nation”

“the Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate that his work as a dentist... would result in an impact of regional or national importance”

“the record contained no evidence that the Petitioner registered his business or hired any employees, which might support the projections in the business plan”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the Petitioner neither provided corroborating evidence in support of those projections nor demonstrated that this endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects for the nation”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “such letters lacked any discussion of the proposed endeavor or its national importance and instead focused on the Petitioner's skill and experience”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “such evidence addresses the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  AAO decision text
• other · discounted

  “the national importance analysis focuses on the specific endeavor rather than the general analysis of the expert opinion letter regarding the industry”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• 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

Notable

Petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor after the RFE (from working in dental clinics to owning/operating his own clinic as CEO); AAO notes this cannot be considered but the Director and AAO nonetheless assessed both original and altered endeavors and found neither showed national importance. AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as dispositive of prong 1 failure.

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
• Chen v. INS
• Matter of Izummi
• 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