dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 10, 2025 In Re: 34836755 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dental surgeon, seeks classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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 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. 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 ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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)(A) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the 
Petitioner has established that 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 conclude that the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner indicated that she intends to open ____________ a state-of-the-art 
dental practice specializing in oral diagnostics, restorative treatments, prosthetics, and cosmetic 
dentistry, in I I Florida. 
The Director reviewed the totality of the evidence in the record, including the Petitioner's statements, 
business plan, expert opinion letter, education and credential information, and industry reports and 
articles. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor's substantial 
merit or its national importance. In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake stands to sufficiently extend beyond its customers 
to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance, has a significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or that it otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for 
our nation. Id. at 889-90. The Director also noted that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that the areas of I I Florida are economically depressed, that she would employ a significant 
workforce in that area, or that her project would offer the city or its population a substantial economic 
benefit through either its employment level or virtual product services. The Director further noted that 
the record does not adequately show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the Petitioner's project would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar and without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, her 
proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Id. at 890. 
A. Substantial Merit 
First, although the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director found the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, this is incorrect. In denying the petition, the Director specifically stated that the 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
documentary evidence submitted does not support the petitioner's statements that the proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit. However, we disagree. 
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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in oral health, including 
preventive care, dental surgery, and orthodontics. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not have substantial merit. 
B. National Importance 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does 
not satisfy the national importance element under Matter of Dhanasar' s first prong. If the Petitioner 
does not meet the first prong, she is ineligible for the national interest waiver. 
In evaluating 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" and its prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted 
that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have 
national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." Id. 
In her statements, the Petitioner emphasized that her clinic "will cater to an extensive array of dental 
needs, from routine check-ups and cleanings to intricate services such as orthodontic alignment and 
cosmetic dentistry," as well as education in oral hygiene. Before the Director and again on appeal, the 
Petitioner also provided published articles from professional, industry, and government publications in 
support of her claim that she can satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
articles address the lack of affordable dental care in the United States, nationwide and regional labor 
shortages in the dental health profession, inequalities in the availability of dental care across different 
demographic populations, and serious health outcomes that can be linked to a lack of adequate dental 
care. 
While the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide dental services to her clients as part of 
her proposed endeavor, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Her statements 
do not show how her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her own proposed practice 
and its patients to impact the dental/oral health field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Id. at 889. 
We also acknowledge that the articles submitted provide support for the Petitioner's claim that her 
proposed work has substantial merit, as they reflect that oral health is important to the overall health of 
the population and that the United States has many underserved communities that lack access to adequate 
dental care. The articles also generally focus on the importance of the oral health/dental field overall. 
However, as stated, in assessing national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the petitioner will work; instead, the focus is on the prospective impact 
3 
of the specific endeavor, including if it will have broader impact within the field in which the individual 
proposes to undertake the endeavor. Id. Here, the record does not establish that the work of one dentist 
or dental surgeon or clinic would have broader implications to have a nationally significant impact in 
this field. 
The articles the Petitioner submitted also include statistics intended to show that there is a shortage of 
dentists in the United States. Similarly, an expert opinion letter from the Dean of the I I 
I I New York indicates that there are shortages of dental health 
care professionals which the Petitioner's clinic will address. However, a shortage of qualified 
professionals does not render the work of an individual dentist nationally important under 
the Dhanasar precedent decision. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified 
workers through the labor certification process and Schedule A regulations. Congress did not provide a 
blanket exemption for dentists with respect to the job offer and labor certification requirement. 
The Petitioner further claims that her proposed endeavor will impact both the U.S. economy and that her 
clinic will have substantial positive economic effects. We stated in Dhanasar that "[aa ]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 will be understood to have national 
importance." Id. at 890. 
The job creation and revenue projections included in the Petitioner's business plan are not supported by 
details showing their basis or an explanation of how those projections will be realized and therefore do 
not sufficiently corroborate the national importance of her endeavor. Even if the Petitioner had 
established a sufficient basis for these projections, they still do not establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. While the projected income statement indicates that the Petitioner's dental 
business has growth potential, it does not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar to establish its national importance. Id. at 890. In addition, the Petitioner 
has not offered sufficient evidence identifying that the area where her clinic will operate is economically 
depressed. Similarly, she has not adequately established that the projected direct and indirect job 
projections, even if corroborated by other probative evidence, are such that they show that her endeavor's 
potential to employ U.S. workers is significant. Id. 
Further, we acknowledge that the expert opinion letter from the Dean of the 
who in addressing the national importance aspect of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, provided that 
the Petitioner's business will offer affordable prices and actively engage with the local community 
through outreach programs and partnerships to promote oral health awareness and improve the overall 
well-being ofl !residents. She then reviewed the Petitioner's business plan and indicated that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor will "make a positive impact on the nation's economy by fostering job 
opportunities and generating tax revenues." The Dean further indicated that the proposed endeavor 
would contribute to public health and well-being on both local and national levels through the provision 
of affordable comprehensive dental services, a focus on preventive care, and an emphasis on patient 
education. The Dean concluded that the proposed endeavor "intersects with matters of national 
importance related to healthcare accessibility, preventive medicine, and public health initiatives [ and] 
through its commitment to affordability, preventive care, and community engagement, it [will] 
4 
contribute to broader national efforts to improve healthcare access, promote public health, and empower 
individuals to lead healthier lives." 
The input of any professionals in the relevant field or industry is respected and valuable in assessing a 
claim of a national interest waiver. However, the general assertions in the expert opinion letter that the 
services the Petitioner proposes to provide as part of her endeavor will contribute to overall public health 
and have national and local impact on the field and the economy do not sufficiently demonstrate the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For example, 
the Dean does not explain how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, through the work of her dental clinic, 
will extend beyond her own practice and its patients to impact the dental/oral health field more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance. Additionally, apart from general, unsupported 
assertions, the Dean's letter does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's dental services through 
her clinic would employ a significant population of U.S. workers, or that her endeavor would offer a 
particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or 
business activity. 
Finally, the Petitioner has emphasized her long career as a dental surgeon in Brazil, and her expected 
leadership role in her own future practice; however, these factors do not sufficiently establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner's professional qualifications and prior 
employment are important and are documented in the record, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through 
her education, training, and employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national" and whether they are well 
positioned to advance the endeavor. Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor itself that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The Petitioner's claims on appeal do not overcome the basis for the Director's findings as they relate to 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be of national importance, and she therefore does not 
meet the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and has not established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in 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). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5