The Petitioner proposed to operate her own dental clinic in the United States, later asserting on motion/appeal that the clinic would also train dental professionals through internship and residency programs.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor of operating a dental clinic would result in broader implications to her field-beyond the direct benefits to her prospective patients”

“a shortage of professionals alone does not demonstrate the national importance of her individual endeavor”

“the Petitioner has not explained how this would result in broader implications to her field”

“in Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of more broadly in a manner which rises to national importance”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's experience in the field, but nonetheless concluded that the record did not establish she was well-positioned to advance her endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established

“The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established, on balance, that it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the job offer requirement.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the business plan and her credentials which were already submitted and properly analyzed by the Director”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “primarily a revised curriculum vitae and employer verification letter, did not establish her eligibility”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “resubmits her business plan and her education evaluation previously submitted before the Director”

  AAO decision text
• degree · discounted

Where this case turned

• 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
• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

The appeal is procedurally framed as review of the Director's dismissal of a combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not the original denial; the AAO holds that Petitioner's failure to specifically contest the motion decision (rather than re-litigating the original denial) is itself an independent basis for dismissal, before proceeding to a de novo substantive review reaching the same result.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• INA 203(b)(2)
• Matter of Coelho

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