dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2025 In Re: 37116228 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess 
a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&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: 
• 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 as an advanced degree professional, but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and thus has not 
demonstrated eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
In his initial filing, the Petitioner asserted that he intends to operate a dental clinic services company 
in Florida to provide orthodontic and dental consultations and diagnostic services, orthodontic braces 
treatment, clear aligners treatment, cavity fillings, bridges, and veneer services. Relying on his 
experience both in the dentistry field as well as his business development experience, the Petitioner 
intends to serve as the company's chief executive officer (CEO). He asserted that his company would 
focus on providing affordable dental services and treatments for adults and children, as well as 
providing continued education for dental professionals. According to his initial business plan, the 
Petitioner intended to employ a total of 87 direct employees and contractors, which he claimed would 
result in the creation of 118 indirect jobs. 
In support of his endeavor, the Petitioner initially provided a five-year business plan, a definitive 
statement, an expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation from his previous employers, 
colleagues, and patients attesting to his expertise in patient care and his passion in the education of 
proper oral care. In addition, the Petitioner submitted various articles and industry reports discussing 
the dental industry and anticipated labor shortages in the industry, along with articles detailing the 
impact of immigrants and entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. 2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated business 
plan, a professional plan, letters of support from his prospective business partners, evidence of his 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
volunteer work, as well as updated articles and reports on the state of oral health in the United States, 
health disparities across the country, and the importance of oral health to the aging population. 
According to the Petitioner, he revised his business plan in response to the Director's concerns in the 
RFE, and based on consultation with a professor of business and economics. He indicated in his 
updated business plan that he intended to target his services to the "underserved elderly population 
age 65 and above," asserting that "by concentrating on this specific age group, [his company] aim[ s] 
to fill a critical gap in dental care services." He asserted that his company intends to offer "accessible, 
high-quality dental care solutions tailored to the needs of older adults, thereby enhancing their overall 
dental health and well-being," and would offer customized financial solutions, including flexible 
payment options in order to target this underserved population. He also indicated in his professional 
plan that his company would be dedicated to community outreach and educational initiatives, 
including training members of the community on the importance of oral health. In his updated 
business plan, the Petitioner also indicated that he intends to open his dental clinics both in Florida 
and Arizona in cities identified as historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) by the U.S. 
Small Business Administration. 
Upon review, the Director concluded that, while the record established the Petitioner's endeavor is 
substantially meritorious, the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor. Specifically, while acknowledging the importance of the dental field, the Director explained 
that the Petitioner had not shown that his specific endeavor would leave to broader implications 
commensurate with national importance as he did not show his endeavor would have broader 
implications beyond the impact to his potential patients. Moreover, the Director determined the record 
did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects, 
or otherwise broadly enhance societal welfare. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law and 
policy and that the Director did not properly consider the evidence in the record, which he purports 
establishes the national importance of his endeavor. Notably, however, beyond generally disagreeing 
with the Director's conclusions, the Petitioner does not discuss what specific evidence the Director 
did not consider. And, instead of addressing the Director's specific conclusions regarding the limited 
impact of his endeavor, he reiterates the same claims previously made before the Director regarding 
the national importance of his endeavor, continuing to rely primarily on the importance of the dental 
field. As an appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in 
the unfavorable decision, this omission alone is grounds for dismissal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
proposed endeavor, while substantially meritorious, does not have national importance as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. 
In disputing the Director's conclusion, the Petitioner continues to rely on the importance of oral health, 
and the dentistry field. Yet, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
3 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood 
to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor of operating three dental clinics is 
nationally important because it impacts a matter that government entities have described as having 
national importance, and it has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or result in other 
substantial positive economic effects. Specifically, he claims that his endeavor aligns with federal 
priorities focused on economic development, healthcare, and job creation. In support of these claims, 
the Petitioner points to federal fact sheets discussing the federal initiatives supporting small businesses 
and economic growth in underserved areas, and decreasing health care costs in the United States, and 
states that his clinics' alignment with these goals establishes the national importance of his endeavor. 
We are not persuaded by these claims. His endeavor's alignment with federal initiatives may speak 
to the substantial merit of the endeavor, but it does not establish the specific endeavor's potential 
prospective impact, nor does the Petitioner establish how his endeavor will meaningfully impact these 
broad initiatives. Instead, the record reflects that the prospective impact of the Petitioner's work will 
be limited to his prospective patients. 
Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that his clinics will result in national implications to the health industry 
as he will be able to treat and help his patients recover, which in tum will benefit the broader U.S. 
population. We acknowledge the evidence in the record discussing the importance oral health, and in 
particular the importance of combating poor oral health among the elderly, but he has not shown how 
any prospective benefits his clinics may offer its patients would result in broader implications to the 
industry. And while we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims that he intends to educate both his 
prospective patients and community to "make a lasting, positive impact on public health and education 
in the United States," as well as his plans to help educate and train others on geriatric dentistry, 
community health, and practice management, he does not elaborate further on how this would result 
in broader implications commensurate with national importance. 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide valuable services to his 
prospective patients, he has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The same 
reasoning applies here. The Petitioner has not shown that his future training and educational activities 
will have a significant national impact on the practice of dentistry in the United States. As such, we 
conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his own proposed practice and its patients to impact the oral health field or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications 
Likewise, the Petitioner's claims that his company will have substantial positive economic effects are 
not persuasive. First, we note that, the Petitioner's business plan submitted in response to the 
Director's request for evidence contained different employment and financial projections than his 
4 
original business plan. Initially, the Petitioner indicated that, by its fifth year of operation, his company 
would employ a total of 84 employees, resulting in an annual payroll expense of $4,331,385, and he 
indicated that in that same time, the company would generate an annual revenue of $21,240,000. The 
Petitioner asserted that his operations would also result in 118 indirect jobs created in the communities 
where he operates. Then, in his updated business plan, he indicated that he intended to employ a total 
of 36 employees, resulting in an annual payroll of $2,774,220 and the creation of 51 indirect jobs. 
Additionally, the updated business plan projected the company's annual revenue to reach $5,848,763 
by its fifth year. While the Petitioner asserted that these updates were made in consultation with his 
partners and a professor of business, he did not explain the basis behind these projections or the reasons 
for changing them from the initial plan. And, beyond providing an anticipated cost of his services, the 
business plans also do not explain the basis for these financial projections. Yet, even if the endeavor's 
revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained and supported, they do not establish 
that his company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance contemplated in 
Dhanasar, nor has the Petitioner explained how his proposed employment numbers and revenue would 
impact his company's areas of intended operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the areas of intended operations to establish the national 
importance of his endeavor, claiming that he will be base his clinics in areas designated as HUBZones. 
First, as stated in the Director's decision, the record does not contain any evidence establishing the 
company's physical location. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his 
clinics will in fact be in a HUBZone. Instead of addressing this issue on appeal, the Petitioner reiterates 
the same claims of economic impact made before the Director. Yet, as stated, the record does not 
adequately establish that increased employment in these designated underutilized business zones 
would have positive economic effects commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 890. So, the fact that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone does not 
establish that the Petitioner's endeavor is of national importance. A petitioner must support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In addition, the testimonial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion letter and the letters 
of recommendation, also provide little probative value in establishing the national importance of the 
Petitioner's endeavor. For instance, in the expert opinion letter from while Dr. A-B-, they focus 
primarily on the Petitioner's background as well as the importance of the dental field to establish the 
national importance, concluding that he would be "working in an area of national importance"; 
however, Dr. A-B- did not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or establish how his 
clinics would broadly impact the field. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&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). 
Similarly, much of the content of the recommendation letters lack probative value with respect to the 
national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. We recognize that the Petitioner has had a 
successful career, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under 
Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
5 
national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. We conclude that he has not. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments for EB-2 
immigrant classification as well as Dhanasar's second and third prongs. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6