The Petitioner, a dentist, intended to provide dental services in the United States, variously described as working as a dentist, founding and serving as CEO of a dental practice in Florida, and/or offering advisory oral rehabilitation services to U.S. entities and clinics.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Because we cannot discern what specific endeavor the Petitioner intends to pursue, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she has proposed an endeavor of substantial merit or national importance.”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employees and to impact either the dental industries more broadly”

“it is not clear how the employment of individuals at a single facility in an occupation in which there is a general national shortage would render the proposed endeavor nationally important”

“The growth forecast figures, however, do not appear to originate from objective sources”

“a table in the business plan depicting the Petitioner's initial investment of $350,000 is not supported by documentation to demonstrate the availability or existence of those investment funds”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Absent probative evidence to show the realistic potential of the business to operate at all, it is not evident that the company will generate revenue”

  AAO decision text
• contract revenue · discounted

  “The growth forecast figures, however, do not appear to originate from objective sources”

  AAO decision text
• funding · discounted

  “is not supported by documentation to demonstrate the availability or existence of those investment funds”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

Petitioner offered several inconsistent descriptions of her proposed endeavor (dentist, CEO of dental practice, advisory services to U.S. entities/clinics) and failed to clarify despite an RFE specifically requesting clarification; AAO found this inconsistency itself defeated prong 1 before even reaching the business plan's economic merits.

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.

• Matter of Ho
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS

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