dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dental Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 25, 2024 In Re: 31207800 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the dental care field, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well 
as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for EB-2 classification, he did not demonstrate that a waiver of the required 
job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before 
us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports this conclusion. 3 Therefore, the 
primary issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of the three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
In denying the petition, the Director addressed all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. Although 
the Director found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, and that the Petitioner is well-positioned 
to advance it, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance and that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial 
to the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
Considering the national importance prong, the Service claimed that the petitioner has 
not offered sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims that the proposed endeavor has 
national importance ... For this reason, the Appellant was deprived of due process 
rights and a fair treatment under USCIS policy, the United States Constitution, and 
international treaties because the Service erroneously denied further analysis of NIW 
prongs. For doing so, the Service deprived the Appellant's fair chance to obtain his 
immigration benefit. As such, the officer erroneously assumed that the Appellant's 
proposed endeavor does not have substantial merit and is not nationally important. 
However, this is not the case. 
The record does not support this assertion. As noted, the Director discussed all three Dhanasar prongs, 
found substantial merit in the proposed endeavor, and determined that the Petitioner had satisfied the 
second prong, concluding that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not objectively evaluate all the submitted 
evidence under the preponderance of the evidence standard. He maintains that the evidence was 
sufficient to demonstrate that he meets all three prongs under the Dhanasar framework and otherwise 
warrants a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. For the reasons provided below, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 4 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The record establishes that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree from an institution of higher 
education in the United States, and that he has at least five years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in his 
specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner demonstrated that he worked as a partner and a head dental surgeon at various dental 
clinics in Brazil between 200 l and the time of filing the instant petition in August 2022. On Part 6 of 
the petition, the Petitioner identified his intended occupation as "CEO/entrepreneur in the dental care 
field," and provided the job description and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 
corresponding to chief executives. 
In his Definitive Statement, submitted at the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated he intends to 
continue using his professional experience as a dental surgeon and clinic owner "to work as an 
Entrepreneur in the dental care field in the United States .... by developing and expanding my own 
clinic in the nation, ________ based in Utah. In addition, the proposed endeavor will 
provide "oral health services across underserved U.S. regions ... to alleviate a nationwide health crisis 
- in which a vast portion of Americans do not have access to oral health services." Further, his 
proposed endeavor is projected to "reach a total headcount of 54 employees [and] compensated wages 
totaling $7.63 million by Year 5." 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner also provided his business plan, in which he stated that his proposed 
endeavor will "hire several qualified U.S. dental healthcare and support professionals" and expand "to 
Opportunity Zones in neighboring Arizona and Colorado .... " The business plan included industry 
and market analyses, business strategies, financial forecasts and projections, and a description of the 
company's proposed service offerings and personnel. With respect to future staffing, the plan projects 
that the Petitioner's dental business would hire 54 employees in the first five years of operations, 
generate approximately $1.8 million in tax revenue by its fifth year, and achieve gross revenue of 
$1,387,800 in its first year and $9,714,600 by its fifth year. 
In addition, the business plan indicated that the Petitioner will be "advising on some surgeries, clinic 
management, and client services," and providing training programs for "clinic staff and external 
professionals." The Petitioner did not claim or provide evidence that he is licensed to practice dentistry 
in the United States, but the business plan stated his intention to apply "for Certification in the State 
of Utah or Colorado." He did not provide a timeline for licensure or certification in his chosen 
specialty, instead indicating that he "will be assuming his duties as dental surgeon upon the opening 
of the fourth clinic ( outside scope of this plan)." 
In his response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner emphasized his "expertise in the 
health care field" and "strong business management and entrepreneurial skills, allowing him to put 
forth field-wide standards that stimulate wellness, all while offering beneficial implications to patients, 
the health field at large, and U.S. business and economic prosperity." 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, which aims to improve the oral health of U.S. patients, has substantial merit. 
3 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Before the Director, the Petitioner provided 
published articles from professional and industry publications in support of his claim that he can satisfy 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The articles address the lack of affordable 
dental care in the United States, nationwide and regional labor shortages in the dental health 
profession, and inequalities in the availability of dental care across different demographic populations. 
This evidence provides support for the Petitioner's claim that his proposed work has substantial merit. 
However, in evaluating national importance, 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 that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n 
undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. 
While the Petitioner 's statements reflect his intention to provide dental services to his clients, he has 
not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Based on his business plan and statement, 
the Petitioner has not shown how the dental services he intends to provide to his clients would have 
broader implications in the dental field. The Petitioner emphasized that his clinic will "provide oral 
health services across underserved U.S. regions." He maintains that the endeavor will impact both the 
U.S. economy as well as other national and social interests by promoting oral healthcare across 
underserved regions for socially underserved people and will help to alleviate a lack of affordable 
dental care. 
The record supports a determination that oral health is important to the overall health of the population 
and that the United States has many underserved communities that lack access to adequate dental care. 
However, the record does not establish that the work of one dentist or dental surgeon would have a 
nationally significant impact in this field. The record contains statistics intended to show that there is 
a shortage of dentists in the United States. But this shortage is likewise insufficient to demonstrate 
the national importance of any clinic or clinics that the Petitioner may establish and in which he may 
practice, pending completion of his future studies and licensure. 
A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual dentist nationally 
important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's claims of national 
importance could reasonably apply to any dental practice, but Congress did not provide a blanket 
exemption for dentists with respect to the job offer and labor certification requirement. 5 Foreign 
dentists are typically subject to this requirement and therefore the intrinsic benefits of operating a 
clinic are not presumptive grounds for waiving that requirement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his clinic or clinics will have substantial positive economic 
effects and references previously submitted supporting articles that emphasize the importance of 
5 The U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process. A 
determination as to whether the benefits inherent in the labor ce1iification process are outweighed by other favorable factors 
relates to the balancing analysis set forth under the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
4 
entrepreneurship on U.S. economic development and the critical contributions of immigrants to the 
U.S. economy. He maintains that the endeavor will progressively impact both the U.S. economy as 
well as other national and social interests by "generating jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized 
areas, improving wages and working conditions for the U.S. workers, and helping the local community 
bring investments to the region." 
We stated in Dhanasar that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may will be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. However, the burden is on 
the Petitioner to establish that the economic effects of his proposed endeavor are "substantial." The 
job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by 
details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized. Even if the 
Petitioner had established a sufficient basis for these projections, they would not establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. While the profit and loss statement indicates that the 
Petitioner's dental business has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence identifying that the area where his 
company will operate is economically depressed; that his company would employ a significant 
population of workers in that area; or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Without this 
information, he has not adequately supported his claims regarding direct and indirect job creation and 
the expected direct and indirect economic benefits of operating one or more dental clinics. As such, 
the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Further, the Petitioner has emphasized the importance of his industry or profession, his long career as 
a dental surgeon in Brazil, and his expected leadership role in his own future practice; however, these 
factors do not sufficiently establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Although the 
Petitioner's professional qualifications and prior employment are important and are documented in the 
record, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his education, training, and employment relates to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner has also indicated in his statement his intent to deliver "workshops for students and fellow 
dental practitioners to enrich local dental health ecosystems." In Dhanasar, we determined that the 
petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. The same reasoning applies here. The Petitioner 
has not shown that his future teaching activities will have a significant national impact on the practice 
of dentistry in the United States. He has not, for example, provided any detailed plan for reaching a 
wider audience through "workshops." As such, we find the record does not show that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own proposed practice and its patients to 
5 
impact the oral health field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from an assistant 
professor of dentistry at the __________ In addressing the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, the author describes how Brazil's skilled "dental practitioners and the size of 
its market" have attracted investment from some of the world's biggest dental supply companies. He 
states that U.S. "Dental and Clinical institutions, operating or planning to operate in Brazil, would 
benefit from the expertise and skills of a Dentist and Orthodontist such as [the Petitioner] .... [who] 
has a[n] intimate knowledge and vast experience of the Brazilian Dental field." The professor 
concludes that the Petitioner's work would be in an area "of substantial merit and national importance 
for the United States." 
The input of any professionals in the relevant field or industry is respected and valuable in assessing 
a claim of a national interest waiver. However, the expert opinion letter does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers the "substantial positive economic effects" for our nation contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For example, the professor has not offered sufficient evidence that the 
Petitioner's dental services through his company would employ a significant population of workers in 
an economically depressed area, or that his endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Further, 
although the professor indicates that there are shortages of dental health care professionals which the 
Petitioner's company will address, he has not suggested that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
lessen the demand for dentists on a scale rising to the level of national importance. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor would be of 
national importance, and he therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. Although the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established his eligibility under the third prong of the Dhanasar framework, detailed discussion of the 
remaining prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve those issues and 
will dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not demonstrated his eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6