dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2024 In Re: 35298204 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. 
See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national 
interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter a/Christa 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement " in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 
matter of discretion,1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification.2 The issue 
on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, 
as required under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. We conclude that she has not.3 
The Petitioner currently works in Brazil as a dental surgeon for her dental clinic and as a professor for 
a laser dentistry school. For the laser dentistry school, she has been conducting laser therapy training 
in Brazil and coordinating the expansion of its laser certification centers to the United States. She 
proposes to continue working in the laser dentistry field in the United States as a researcher and 
consultant. For her proposed endeavor, she plans to develop techniques and advanced technologies to 
manage side effects from chemo and radio therapy cancer treatments. In particular, she plans to utilize 
antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to treat mucositis, a condition usually caused by cancer 
treatments that causes oral pain and complications hindering further oncology treatment. Through her 
aPDT research and advancements, she intends to "bridge the gap between clinical practice and 
scientific research" with a commitment to foster "collaboration and knowledge transfer between 
academic, industry, and healthcare professionals" for improved patient care. She also mentions that 
in addition to her clinical work, she is exploring establishing a business in the United States in the 
healthcare industry. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
Even though the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her endeavor has the potential to have 
broader implications rising to the level of national importance. Upon de novo review, the Petitioner 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeal in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma, her academic transcript, an 
academic evaluation, and letters of employment. The record demonstrates her eligibility as an advanced degree 
professional having earned the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by more than five years of 
progressive experience in her specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
has not established that her proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar's 
first prong, as discussed below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director applied a standard of proof stricter than 
preponderance of the evidence, erroneously applied the law, and did not give due regard to the 
submitted evidence. To support her claims of national importance, the Petitioner specifically points 
to her professional plan and statement describing her credentials and the projected benefits she may 
offer the United States, as well as industry reports and articles showing the importance of laser 
dentistry and the shortage of professionals in her field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989). Here, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently detailed her specific proposed endeavor or provided evidence 
demonstrating its potential prospective impact is commensurate with national importance. The 
Petitioner's professional plan and statement indicates she plans to consult with equipment 
manufacturers and scientific research institutions on technological innovation projects to improve oral 
healthcare and disseminate knowledge to others which she claims would have economic and 
healthcare benefits to the United States. Mainly discussing in general terms her intent to advance 
technologies to better manage side effects from chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments, the 
Petitioner does not explain or provide evidence showing how she intends to consult and research new 
advanced technologies or how her endeavor would be different from work typically performed through 
laser dentistry. Instead, the Petitioner provides broad, general assertions about the importance of her 
proposed work. For instance, she claims her work has the potential to provide economic savings to 
the healthcare system by reducing the need for intensive care and hospitalization; improve public 
health and trust in healthcare; combat antimicrobial resistance; foster innovation; and generate jobs. 
The record includes letters of intent to invest with the Petitioner, however the letters speak in general 
terms about interest in investing in professional partnerships and research projects with the Petitioner 
to help oral health. Expressing admiration for the Petitioner's work and the importance of laser 
dentistry to healthcare, the letters, however, do not explain the specifics of the partnerships and 
research they intend to invest in with the Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner references having 
published articles contributing to scientific research, but the record does not include evidence 
explaining her published articles to better understand her intended research and consulting work. 
Without more evidence detailing the specifics of her proposed consulting and research work, the 
record lacks evidence to determine whether her proposed endeavor has the claimed potential 
prospective impact on the laser dentistry field, the healthcare field, or the U.S. economy rising to the 
level of national importance. 
In addition to her proposed clinical work, the Petitioner indicates that she is exploring starting a 
business which would have asubstantial economic impact on the United States through its generation 
3 
of jobs and impact on the healthcare industry. However, the Petitioner does not provide further 
evidence about the specifics of her proposed business; instead, she explains the economic and 
healthcare benefits of using laser therapy and aPDT for oral mucositis in cancer patients. 
The Petitioner's claims that her laser dentistry research and consulting activities stand to provide 
broader impact on her field and the nation have not been established through independent and objective 
evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate her claims and must be 
supported with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 
376. Also, without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as a laser dentistry 
researcher and consultant for medical equipment manufacturers and scientific research institutions or 
any other industry professionals would impact her field or the nation more broadly, rather than 
benefiting her prospective employers, clients, and business, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a 
preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In determining 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 Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
we 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. We also stated 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 well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner stresses on appeal her 20 years of professional experience in dental prosthodontics and 
laser dentistry to show "[h]er skills and expertise have the potential to greatly benefit the U.S. 
healthcare system by improving patient care, reducing costs, and fostering innovation in cancer 
treatment and other healthcare areas." She claims her experience "will benefit any U.S. companies 
and individuals who need qualified professionals who possess expertise as a [c]onsultant in the field 
of [r]esearch/[d]entistry with aspecial focus on developing and executing comprehensive dental plans 
for oral rehabilitation, incorporating advanced techniques such as [aPDT] to combat resistant 
microorganisms." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience to establish the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her professional experience 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 that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has 
national importance under Dhanasar ·s first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the 
"potential prospective impact" of her work. See id. at 889. 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 the field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the record does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will impact the field of laser dentistry, the healthcare industry, or any 
other industries, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. 
4 
The Petitioner further contends her proposed endeavor has national importance because her laser 
dentistry research and consulting work would mitigate the shortage of laser dentistry professionals in 
the United States and provide economic and healthcare benefits. To support her claims, the Petitioner 
submitted industry reports, news articles, and scientific articles from others in her field. Such reports 
and articles relate to a shortage of dental professionals; the rising costs of dental healthcare; 2021 
report about dentists in the United States; the varying demand for restorative dental care by patient 
age; the profession of maxillofacial prosthodontist; dental industry trends; prosthodontist jobs in the 
United States; improved technology to treat drug-resistant bacterial infections; aPDT treatment of 
aggressive periodontitis and resistant bacterial strains; antimicrobial photodynamic treatment for 
surface sanitation; aPDT and intravascular laser irradiation of blood in oncology; opportunities in 
dental research; and expected growth of global dental lasers market. 
We recognize the importance of the laser dentistry therapy field and related careers; however, merely 
working in the laser dentistry field as aresearcher and consultant is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry or field, 
or a need for professionals in a field, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. The 
issue here is whether the Petitioner has established how her proposed endeavor would affect national 
laser dentistry employment levels, the U.S. economy, or healthcare more broadly consistent with 
national importance. It is unclear from the evidence in the record that the work of a single healthcare 
professional in the field of dentistry, irrespective of that proposed endeavor's success or failure, would 
have a significant impact on the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence. The evidence in the 
record does not highlight how the Petitioner's work could have broader implications that address a 
scarcity of laser dentistry professionals. And if in fact these shortages can be addressed by adding 
additional qualified professionals like the Petitioner, they would be better addressed through the U.S. 
Department of Labor's (DOL) labor certification process. The articles and reports submitted do not 
discuss her endeavor having the claimed broader impact to her field, or the claimed economic, 
healthcare, or social welfare impacts specifically attributable to her proposed endeavor. 
In support of the Petitioner's claims of national importance, the record also includes an opinion from 
an associate professor at the I I However, the opinion does not 
explain or focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and its potential prospective impact. 
Instead, the opinion indicates in broad terms that the Petitioner's endeavor could help businesses by 
providing advice on the latest research and developments in the field; identifying new research 
opportunities, potential areas of growth, and new product development; and imparting guidance on 
research projects for data analysis, study design, and interpretation of results. In addition, the opinion 
mainly focuses on the Petitioner's professional experience contributing to improving oral healthcare, 
the importance of oral health to general healthcare, and national initiatives and policies supporting oral 
health and professionals in medical career fields. The submission of letters from experts supporting a 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Matter of Caron lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter of D-R, 25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the 
varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall 
probative value). As explained above, stating that the Petitioner's professional experience would 
contribute to supporting an important industry is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" 
requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
5 
While the Petitioner expresses her desire to contribute to the United States, her field of laser dentistry, 
and U.S. healthcare, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her endeavor has 
the potential to have national, or even global, impact on her field or broader implications rising to a 
level of national importance. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. Assertions made without supporting documentation 
are of limited probative value and do not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
See Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's claims depend on 
numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her 
proposed laser dentistry research and consulting work and the claimed results. 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and therefore she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong,4 but, on balance, it 
would not be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a 
labor certification under Dhanasar's third prong. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve her appellate arguments and 
determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Although the Director determined the Petitioner met Dhanasar's second prong, the decision did not provide an 
explanation or analysis of the evidence for this finding. 
6