dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 18, 2024 In Re: 31201350 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an orthodontist/entrepreneur, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that he was eligible for the requested classification or that a waiver of the classification's job 
offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be 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 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 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification is established, 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he has more than 17 years of experience as a dentist, with over IO years of 
experience owning and operating his own clinic. He states that his proposed endeavor is to open his 
own dental clinic to "work as an Orthodontist (with a special emphasis in the area of prosthodontics) 
in the United States." He states that his clinic will "primarily serve American communities that have 
limited access to dental healthcare, either because of an acute shortage of dentists ... or because of 
their socioeconomic backgrounds." 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, a professional 
plan and statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, recommendation and support letters, and an expert opinion letter. He also submitted industry 
reports and articles discussing the state of dental care in the United States, the benefits of 
entrepreneurship, and the important role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. economy. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a business plan for his proposed endeavor, 
evidence of fonding, letters of interest, additional recommendation and support letters, and additional 
articles and industry reports. 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a first professional degree in dentistry awarded 
in 2006. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
2 
The Petitioner's business plan states that his clinic will be established in Massachusetts and will later 
expand to "provide dental services throughout the United States by partnering with other dentists." 
The Petitioner will serve as managing director and dentist, providing multidisciplinary dental care. 
The plan anticipates that the company will employ 11 employees in its first five years. The plan 
forecasts that the company will have sales of over $1.5 million by its fifth year, with payroll expenses 
of $978,421 and tax expenses of$44,773. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification. The Director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, 
or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in the field of dentistry. In analyzing 
whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the Director specifically 
noted that the Petitioner's claimed full-time experience overlapped in years, including experience he 
claimed was gained in multiple locations in Brazil and in the United States during the same period. 
Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors 
such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective contributions to the 
United States, an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that his 
self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director did not give due regard to 
evidence in the record and imposed a novel standard of proof. The Petitioner also asserts that he was 
"deprived of due process rights and a fair treatment." In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references 
evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he merits a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. As noted above, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and we agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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." See Id. 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. 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. 
3 
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing the importance of 
entrepreneurship on economic growth, many of these reports are not specific to the field of dentistry. 3 
An article from The New Yorker, dated June 2018, and titled "Why the United States Needs More 
Immigrants," discusses the benefits of immigrants entering the workforce to replace the aging 
generation that is exiting the workforce through retirement. However, the report is six years old and 
analyzes the U.S. workforce generally. It does not provide any information about the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor in the field of dentistry. Nor is the information discussed specific to 
Massachusetts, the location of the Petitioner's proposed business. 
Additional reports discuss a shortage of dentists and dental care availability in the United States but 
are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or the location of his business. As noted above, 
when determining national importance, we examine the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, rather 
than focusing on the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. See 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889; see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("In determining national importance, the officer's analysis 
should focus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific occupational 
classification."). Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through 
the labor certification process. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of 
entrepreneurship generally or a shortage of dentists, rather than his specific proposed endeavor. Even 
considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still 
conclude that they do not support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
The Petitioner also submits his business plan dated April 2023 to support the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the proposed endeavor's impact. Although the Petitioner states that his experience in dentistry, 
including in underserved communities, will contribute to the U.S. economy, he has not supported these 
assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The projections of the Petitioner's 
company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record. 
The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already 
available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the 
Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader 
implications within the field of dentistry. The record does not establish that his proposed endeavor 
stands to impact the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner also submits an expert opinion prepared by Dr. I I of the 
Department of Dental Sciences, as well as recommendation letters from current and former employers 
praising the Petitioner's education, experience, past success, personal qualities, and the results he 
achieved. However, these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, that the 
individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these articles and reports, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
We acknowledge that the expert op1rnon includes an analysis of the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In her analysis, Dr. I briefly discusses the history of dental care 
in Brazil and concludes that, "U.S. dental clinical institutions operating or planning to operate in Brazil 
would benefit from the expertise and skills of a dental surgeon such as [the Petitioner]." However, 
she does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective 
impact on the United States, including the national or global implications on dentistry, the potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or the positive economic effects. 
Additionally, we note that the Petitioner states in his personal statement and business plan that he 
intends to provide orthodontist services (specifically prosthodontics) in the United States. He does 
not describe an intention to operate his U.S. businesses in Brazil, as the expert opinion discusses, or 
to provide services as a dental surgeon. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable, USCTS is not required to accept it or may give it less 
weight. See Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence he previously submitted and asserts that the Director 
imposed a "novel standard" and did not consider the evidence objectively. The Petitioner does not 
identify the Director's standard or any erroneous applications oflaw. Although the Petitioner states 
that the Director did not give due regard to his resume, business plan, evidence of work in the field, 
letters ofrecommendation, and industry reports, each of these was discussed in the Director's decision. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that he was deprived of "due process and fair treatment" because 
the Director "erroneously denied further analysis of [the second and third Dhanasar prongs] and 
reasoned that there is no meaningful purpose for this analysis." 4 However, the Petitioner is incorrect. 
The Director provided a full analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
all three Dhanasar prongs in her decision. As noted above, in her analysis of whether the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor the Director noted inconsistencies in the 
Petitioner's claimed work experience, including experience he claimed was gained in multiple 
locations in Brazil and in the United States on overlapping dates. The Petitioner does not address this 
or resolve these inconsistencies on appeal. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal 
and professional qualities and achievements, and the importance of entrepreneurship. However, as set 
forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
4 Although the Petitioner invokes his right to due process alleging that the Director's denial deprived him of further review 
and a fair chance to obtain the immigration benefit, it is not apparent what action the Petitioner finds violative of due 
process. In any event, we have no authority to entertain constitutional due process challenges to lawful USCIS action. Cf 
Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I&N Dec. 223, 231 (BIA 2002). Even if we did have that authority, the parties must 
demonstrate a showing of "substantial prejudice" to prevail on a due process challenge. See De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 
F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). The Petitioner has not shown any violation of the regulations that resulted in "substantial 
prejudice." 
5 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to 
the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. On appeal, the Petitioner 
references the same suppo11ing evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide any 
new evidence. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in 
establishing that the Petitioner met the three Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that he meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
6