Dentist

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner did not present new facts supported by documentary evidence that could change the outcome, specifically regarding the validity of the signature on Form I-140. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO found the signature on the Form I-140 was not consistent with a valid handwritten signature and the form was not electronically filed, thus not meeting the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2).

The Petitioner, a dentist, proposes to launch a dental practice or endeavor. The original business plan indicated she would use her own financial resources to launch the endeavor, though she later submitted a letter of intent from an outside investor.

The Petitioner initially proposed to work with American dental clinics using his experience in dental surgery and implants to improve management and quality services. In response to an RFE, he modified the endeavor to include opening and serving as the CEO of his own dental clinic.

The petitioner proposes to continue his work as a dentist in the United States, focusing on general dentistry, implantology, and communication campaigns promoting oral health education. He intends to offer services in economically depressed areas, implement specific treatment protocols to lower costs, and expand services to nursing homes, orphanages, hospitals, and emergency scenarios.