dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10447639 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist /manager, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicated that she intends 
to open a corporation that will "offer a full spectrum of dental services in I I Florida." The 
Petitioner will be the "founder, owner, and General Manager of the business, managing the whole 
business operations." She will open an office and a "fully outfitted RV for underserved communities and 
senior living facilities." She also plans to open two dental clinics within a 5-year period, and "negotiate 
portable contracts with PPO and HMO dental insurers and complete the company's Medicaid contract 
within 3 months of opening." The Petitioner also stated that her company will use "low-cost and highly 
efficient techniques to provide affordable preventive dental services, which will make it possible for 
families and individuals with lower incomes to receive dental care." She also stated that the company 
will also provide education to the local community on preventative care, and "promote growth in the 
economy of Florida and the U.S. with the direct and indirect creation of jobs for location professionals." 
Further, she stated that there is a grave shortage of dental practitioners in the United States and Florida 
and the Petitioner's endeavor will "enhance societal welfare." 
The record includes information about the shortage of dentists in the United States and the growing 
demand for dentists in Florida, and the healthcare needs for dental care. The record supports the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed work to operate a dental clinic has substantial 
merit. 
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 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. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the "importance of healthcare and dental care, coupled with 
shortage of professionals in that field as well as an excess expenditure with people with dental 
problems helps one understands [sic] why [the Petitioner's] endeavor stands to produce benefits 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
beyond the company's prospective patients and employees." She contends that because her business 
will supply dentists in an area that is need of dental care, she helps the community through dental 
healthcare and job creation, and her proposed endeavor offers broader implications beyond her 
company 's employees and clientele. The Petitioner further states that she "is availing herself to pursue 
her Dentist license in the U.S., as well as creating a business to employ other dentists," and that her 
undertaking stands to "fill the gap of thousands of unfilled jobs , one Dentist at a time." Additionally , 
the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor "will create 9 direct jobs" and countless indirect jobs. 
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. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to create and operate a dentist office and mobile dentist 
office, she has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhana sar 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. Here, we find the record does not show that 
the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her business and its clientele 
to impact her field, the healthcare industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
In addition, the supporting evidence submitted does not sufficiently establish the claims of the Petitioner, 
Specifically, in reviewing the 2020 - 2025 business plan forl I there are several areas 
that do not have supporting evidence to corroborate the business plan. The business plan indicated that 
the Petitioner's company will offer a full spectrum of dental services ml I Florida. This business 
plan includes market analyses, information about the company and its services, financial forecasts and 
projections , an explanation about startup funding, and a description of company management and 
personnel. The business plan offers sales projections of $1,254,481 in year one, $2,180,352 in year 
two, and up to $4,369,173 in year five. The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how 
these sales forecasts were calculated. The business plan stated that the company will be listed as "in­
network" through the insurance company, and it will also accept Medicaid patients within the first 
year which will build the customer base. However , the business plan does not provide any evidence 
of how long the process will take to complete these agreements with Medicaid and the insurance 
providers. In addition, it does not appear that the Petitioner has her own client base to quickly support 
the first year of operations. Thus, it is hard to understand how the business plan reaches these large 
numbers of sales in a short period of time. Although the business plan stated that the demand for 
dentists is high in Florida, it is still not clear how the plan forecasted these sales for the Petitioner 's 
new dental office. 
Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates tha~ I will start 
with a staff of 9 employees and increase to 20 employees by the third year. The payroll for year one 
is projected as $533,700 and will increase to $1,633,691 by the fifth year. Again, the business plan 
does not provide sufficient evidence as to howl._ ________ __,ban hire 9 employees within the 
first year as a new business with no office space, no established clients, and no finalized agreements 
with the insurance companies. Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific 
endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Specifically, she has not shown that her 
company 's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits 
4 
in Florida or the United States. While the sales forecast for the company indicates that it has growth 
potential, it does not demonstrate that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanas ar. Id. at 890. In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that her company will hire U.S. 
employees, she has not offered sufficient evidence she would employ a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated 
that the reduced healthcare costs attributable to her company 's future dental services and dental 
prevention education stand to substantially affect Medicare and Medicaid savings in Florida or 
nationally. 
The evidence in the record is also not sufficient with respect to startup funding. The business plan 
states on page 15 that the new business will "require approximately $290,000 for startup outlays to 
ready a space for patients," and "increases in sales will finance additional personnel and the RV for 
outpatient outreach." The Petitioner asserts that the business plan stated that the initial setup can be 
done with only $142,000. The Petitioner indicated that this project will be self-funded and she will 
invest personal funds until the business establishes income and credit. The Petitioner further indicated 
that she and her husband own two properties in Brazil that are valued high enough to cover the start­
up funds necessary for the new U.S. business. However, upon review of the re istration documents 
for the two properties in Brazil, it appears that one property is owned by 
I I and the second property is owned by ======-=-=.-=.-=_-=_=:_-:_-:_-..... ..--T"'.""h-u-s,-a-c_c_o_rd"'.""i_n_g-to-th__.e 
submitted documents, it does not appear that the Petitioner or her husband own either apartment. In 
addition, there is no evidence that these apartments can be sold to fund the new U.S. dental office. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that she would consider investors to help fund the new office, and 
submitted two letters of intent from individuals that declare they are interested in investing money 
towards the Petitioner 's business in exchange for a monetary capital interest. According to the two 
submitted letters, the investors would provide a combined amount of $35,000.00 towards the 
investment into the U.S. company. However, the letters are only notices of intent and not actual 
agreements to invest in the U.S. company, and the amount of $35,000 would not be sufficient to cover 
the forecasted start-up expenses. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent , objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
In addition, while the Petitioner offered information indicating that the United States faces a shortage 
of dentists, this reported shortage does not render the work of an individual dental services business 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. With respect to the Petitioner's intention to open 
a dental office to provide dental services, the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of 
qualified workers through the labor certification process. Accordingly , a shortage alone does not 
demonstrate that waiving the requirement of a labor certification would benefit the United States. 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed work stands to have wider implications in the field 
of dentistry or the U.S. healthcare industry. Her proposed work therefore does not meet the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
5 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6