dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 27, 2024 In Re: 30587803 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See 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. 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on 
appeal under 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 nova. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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 EB-2 eligibility, 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 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in an unpublished decision, in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the 
equivalent of an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The Petitioner's parallel claim 
of exceptional ability is therefore moot. The 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. The Director determined that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit 
of her proposed endeavor and had satisfied the second prong of the Dhanasar national interest test, 
but had not established the endeavor's national importance or satisfied the third prong. 
The Petitioner earned her first professional degree in dentistry in Brazil in 2010. Since then, she took 
additional coursework in the dental specialties of endodontics, dental prosthesis, and orthodontics. 
Since 2014, the Petitioner has operated her own dental clinic in Brazil. The Petitioner filed the petition 
in February 2023. 
The Petitioner's initial discussion of her proposed endeavor focused on describing how she "will 
provide patient care and guidance." The Petitioner described various tasks performed by dentists in 
clinical practice, and stated that her "professional career will be developed with a focus on clinical 
practice," while also "identifying business needs and new opportunities in Dentistry" and "provid[ing] 
educational lectures to empower other professionals in the field." 
The first Dhanasar 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. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner asserted that "her expertise will generate a 
significant positive economic impact to U.S. businesses and the National Interest." She asserted that, 
because she is able to practice several specialties within dentistry, her "endeavor will help to diminish 
the gap between the availability of general practitioners and dentists with other specializations." For 
example, the Petitioner cited statistics indicating that "[i]n 2019 there were only 3,739 licensed 
professionals in Prosthodontics for the entire country." The Petitioner contended that, given her 
"profound expertise in [a] scarce specialty ... , she will be responsible to disseminate the best practices 
in the field, among her peers and assistants." 
The Petitioner also asserted that her "proposed endeavor is a major economic contributor to the United 
States." The Petitioner provided general statistics about the total value of "[t]he U.S. dental services 
market," but did not establish the economic significance or impact of her intended practice. The 
2 
Petitioner also stated that dental practices create jobs, but she cited no specific figures to establish the 
extent of expected job creation from her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's initial description of her proposed endeavor included several general assertions 
without specific support, stating, for example: "As a Dentist ... [ the Petitioner] creates the opportunity 
to raise the standard ofliving for the United States and the world. Her work is a key factor in creating 
a healthy economy." The Petitioner cited information about the benefits of dentist1y, but general 
background infonnation about the wider field does not establish the national importance of one dental 
practice. 
The Petitioner also stated she intends to "help the less privileged American communities who need 
Dental care," and "to develop and implement non-profit programs so that other professionals can work 
toward the same cause." The Petitioner did not provide any details about these programs, or establish 
that her practice would reach enough underprivileged or underserved patients to reach the level of 
national importance. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner had made "assertions of national 
importance without evidence to support the claim," and that "the national importance of the field of 
dentistry ... does not demonstrate the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor." 
In response, the Petitioner stated that she "will perform beyond the work of ordinary Dentists," 
"providing excellence in all functional and aesthetic aspects of the teeth. This will impact the self­
esteem, health, and productivity of American citizens." The Petitioner also asserted that, because of 
her unique experience, her proposed endeavor will "result[] in immeasurable contributions to the U.S. 
Dentistry sector, including national and even global implications, the significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, enhancement of societal [sic] and national importance to the U.S. government." The 
Petitioner further claimed: 
She will also collaborate with local community organizations and academic institutions 
to establish a network of care and education that extends beyond her practice. Growth 
supported by her endeavor pays dividends for all U.S. citizens by reducing healthcare 
costs associated with untreated dental diseases, enhancing health literacy and 
productivity, and fostering improved social interactions among the aging population 
and children. 
The Petitioner contended that her "work has palpable broader implications, as its results are 
widely disseminated to other professionals in the healthcare industry," but she did not explain how 
this dissemination would occur. Instead, the Petitioner stated: "by serving as a long standing 
successfol Dentist, [the Petitioner] has assured her work would be noticed." 
The Petitioner also stated that her work would result in "[i]ncreased access and affordability of health 
care," because "[b]]y targeting economically distressed regions and breaking down barriers to dental 
healthcare, [the Petitioner] will establish a scalable and replicable model of care that can be applied 
across different geographies." The Petitioner asserted that she would also educate the public about 
dental health care and "contribute to local economies and community development" "[b]]y creating 
employment opportunities, diversifying services, increasing patient base, and collaborating with local 
3 
organizations." The Petitioner listed several transformative goals, but did not provide details, 
corroborated by independent evidence, to show how her proposed endeavor would attain those goals. 
The Petitioner also noted government efforts to promote oral health, and an expected increase in 
demand for new dentists. These factors do not show the national importance of one dental practice. 
The Petitioner did not establish how her proposed endeavor would increase the number of dentists so 
significantly as to reach the level of national impo1iance. The labor certification process addresses 
labor sh01iages, and therefore such shortages are not, themselves, grounds for waiving that process. 
The record shows that, in July 2023, after she received the RFE, the Petitioner wrote to the Florida 
Department of Health (FDOH), requesting "a letter or statement that I I has a need for 
dentists." In response, an FDOH administrator with jurisdiction over three counties acknowledged 
the local shortage and provided a job announcement for a position with FDOH. The Petitioner 
submitted a copy ofFDOH's job announcement, but she did not state whether or not she had applied 
for the position. 
The Petitioner asserted that there is also a shortage of dental hygienists, arising partly from "retirement 
or unwillingness to work as dental hygienists in clinical settings." A new dental practice might create 
new dental hygienist positions to staff that practice, but the Petitioner did not explain how her proposed 
endeavor would increase the supply of dental hygienists to fill those positions. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner's "intent to develop a model which could 
have national, regional, or global implications is insufficient to demonstrate the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor," because the Petitioner did not provide "specific information about the 
petitioner's healthcare model." The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not "demonstrate 
how working as a dentist has national or even global implications," and had not "shown the proposed 
endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals the petitioner would serve 
to impact the industry or field more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
Regarding the National Interest Waiver requirements, the Service concluded that 
Appellant's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but does not have national 
importance. However, the Service did not further analyze the prongs under Dhanasar 
simply because it would serve no meaningful purpose. The Appellant was deprived of 
due process rights and a fair treatment. 
The record does not support this assertion. The Director discussed all three Dhanasar prongs, and 
dete1mined that the Petitioner had satisfied the second prong, concluding that the Petitioner was well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner states that the Director "did not give due regard" to the Petitioner's professional plan 
and "the letter from I I reporting the interest in her skills and that they would be glad to 
work with her in the county." The Petitioner cites a passage from the USCIS Policy Manual: 
4 
[L]etters from an interested government agency or quasi-governmental entity could 
prove favorable for purposes of the first prong if, for example, they establish that the 
agency or entity has expertise in the proposed endeavor and that the proposed STEM 
endeavor promises to advance a critical and emerging technology or is otherwise 
important for purposes of maintaining the United States' technological prominence. 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3). The Petitioner states: "In the present case, the 
office of FDOH] fonnally infonned the [Petitioner] of their interest in her services." As discussed 
above, the communication from FDOH was in response to a request from the Petitioner. While FDOH 
advised the Petitioner of the job opening in response to the Petitioner's inquiry, the record does not 
show that FDOH actively recruited the Petitioner for the position, or that the Petitioner applied for that 
position. The email communication from FDOH does not establish that an interested government 
agency attested to the national impmiance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner reproduces the FDOH email, which reads: I !residents are in need of 
additional access to dental care. In fact, our health department is currently trying to hire a full-time 
Dentist." The message then provides a link to the job announcement discussed above. After 
reproducing the FDOH email, the Petitioner states: "In other words, the national importance of her 
work motivates social opportunities and prompts nourishment developments that improve the 
functionality of the nation's healthcare sector - all which respond to an evident national crisis." 
Notwithstanding the Petitioner's use of the phrase "in other words," the email from FDOH does not 
include any such evaluation of the Petitioner's work or its importance. 
Regarding her professional plan, the Petitioner states that "the national importance of her work 
motivates social opportunities and prompts nourishment developments that improve the functionality 
of the nation's healthcare sector." She also asserts that the "proposed endeavor will impact more than 
just her served individuals, and instead has the potential to reach the families and affiliates of said 
individuals." The Petitioner does not elaborate, nor does she explain how the claimed impact of her 
work on the families and associates of her patients is sufficient to give national importance to the 
proposed endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we concluded that the petitioner had not established that his proposed teaching work 
would have an impact beyond the limited number of students that he would teach. See id. at 893. 
Similar reasoning appears to apply here. The Petitioner described in detail the types of dental 
procedures that she would perfonn, but her clinical practice would serve only a limited number of 
patients. The Petitioner also claimed that she would disseminate knowledge through lectures and other 
means, but did not explain how she would do so at a nationally significant level rather than reach a 
limited number of others in her field. 
Apart from technical descriptions of certain procedures that she would perform in her own practice, 
the Petitioner has provided few details about what her proposed endeavor would entail and how it 
would result in the wider benefits and reforms that she has described. In the absence of such details, 
supported by independent documentary evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met her 
burden of proof to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
5 
Detailed discussion of the remaining Dhanasar prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and third prongs. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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