dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 6, 2023 In Re : 26581616 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who describes himself as an entrepreneur who intends to also work as a dental assistant, 
seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the 
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, while the Petitioner 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the Petitioner 
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. 8 C.F.R. § I03.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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 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 under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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: 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 3 Therefore, the issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that, although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record did not establish that the endeavor has national importance. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence previously included in the record. The Petitioner also 
submits documentation related to his qualifications to work as a dental assistant in the United States 
and letters from universities in New York and Florida concerning his approval for the first phase of 
their selection process for dental residencies. The Petitioner submits a brief in which he asserts that 
the record establishes both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
He reasserts the following: 
As stated, my intention is to work in the Dental Assistants field, focusing on offering 
workforce in such field and on Training/Qualification for Dental Assistants. My 
entrepreneurial action has all the requirements for me to benefit as a member of the 
National Interest Waiver. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong to the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. We disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit for reasons also discussed below. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner established that he holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate in odontology from a university in 
Brazil, as well as more than five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 
2 
A. Substantial Merit 
The record initially included a business plan that discussed the occupation of dentistry in the United 
States, providing data from the American Dental Association and the Kaiser Family Foundation 
concerning the industry, healthcare costs, periodontal disease, and concentrations of dentists 
throughout the country. Neither the business plan nor the remaining evidence of record identified the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Director requested evidence to clarify the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor and to demonstrate its substantial merit and national importance. The Petitioner's response 
included, among other evidentiary items, a letter in which he explained the following ( quoted as 
written): 
Several recent publications have discussed the current state of oral health and the dental 
profession in the United States, future challenges, and the role of dental support 
organizations (DSOs) in them.... [L]ike physicians aligned with managed service 
organizations (MS Os), dentists supported by DSOs can focus on treating their patients 
and providing affordable care, particularly for working-age adults, the youth, and the 
poor. MSOs and DSOs allow physicians and dentists, respectively, to be more attentive 
to patient care and enable business professionals to assist in "non-clinical" 
administration of the practice. By spending their time more efficiently, dentists who 
hire DSOs can offer dental services at lower prices, thus increasing the accessibility of 
dental care in broader segments of the communities in which they practice .... 
The DSO and licensed dentists are experts in their respective roles, and together they 
create a highly successful dental organization that can grow to a wide range of sizes 
across the country. In this way, the USA would benefit significantly from the expertise 
and skills of an experienced Dental Assistant, including the fact that I have previous 
training as a Dentist in Brazil, which gives me a solid knowledge of the practices and 
needs of the Dentist .... 
I intend to establish a company (Cooperative) in the field of offering workforce, 
qualifications, and training for Dental Assistants with the objective of assisting in 
preparing professionals to work in the American market. The company's performance 
will be directed to attend the Dentist's Office, Foreign Dentists, and Foreign Dental 
Assistants. They will benefit, among others, from the specialized labor to be qualified 
and offered by the Petitioner's company. The company will be located in 
I I .. and intends to offer workforce supply services, qualifications, and training 
in the field of Dental Assistants. 
The Director determined that, although the proposed endeavor remained "vague," it appeared "that the 
activities of the proposed endeavor will have substantial merit." We disagree with this conclusion. 
The materials provided by the Petitioner discuss the benefits of oral health and the projected growth 
of the dental industry in the United States; the record does not include documentation that defines the 
Petitioner's endeavor beyond the creation of a limited liability company that intends to sell u~ 
support in the form of "supplies" and "training" to dental assistants from its location inl___J 
3 
Florida. 4 Based on the evidence ofrecord, we cannot determine the substantial merit of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. We therefore withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. We conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
B. National Importance. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. He acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of articles and reports that focus 
generally on dentistry or the healthcare industry to demonstrate the importance of the field; this 
material, however, does not demonstrate the importance of a particular endeavor proposed by the 
Petitioner. The Director explained that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is 
not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to 
assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may 
have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. The Director farther explained that, to evaluate whether 
a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we must look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work of the proposed endeavor. Id. 
at 889. 
After review of the record, including a new business plan submitted in response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Director determined that the record did not contain objective evidence to 
support the Petitioner's assertions. He determined that the record does not demonstrate the endeavor's 
national importance. The Director explained that the revenue and job projections in the new business 
plan were not supported by objective evidence; these projections resulted from calculations using an 
employment multiplier that was not identified or explained in the new business plan. The Director 
also noted that the business plan did not detail the salaries of potential workers or whether their 
employment would be foll- or part-time. Further, the Director pointed out that the revenue projections 
appeared unrealistic for a segment of dental workers who rely on their employers for supplies and 
whose salaries would not comport with the Petitioner's intended charges for training and supplies. 
The Director concluded that the evidence did not show that the proposed endeavor would impact the 
industry more broadly or sufficiently extend beyond the company and its clients to show national or 
global implications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief reasserting that the record demonstrates that his proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. He states the following ( quoted as written): 
Through is entrepreneurial action, my business will be generating jobs for specialized 
professionals, training new workers for the Dental Assistants market and driving the 
4 The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. 
4 
economy of the state of Florida. My company will offer a portfolio of services and 
specialized labor .... 
I reaffirm that my intention at the moment is to act as a Dental Assistant and collaborate 
in the transmission of the knowledge I have obtained throughout my career to other 
professionals, either in my own enterprise or in specific courses and training in the 
field. Even though I manage to achieve my goal as an entrepreneur, I will continue my 
studies in search of exams and certifications that are essential for my work in the U.S. 
Taking into account my professional experience and vast expertise in Dentistry, I 
continue to qualify my self to work even better as a Dentist, focusing on the segments 
of: implant dentistry; minor oral surgery; implant prosthesis; and orofacial 
harmonization. Recently, on 13/09/2021, I was approved by the American Board of 
General Dentistry, having applied to a number of Dentistry courses in Universities, 
currently waiting for an interview for approval. Then, on 12/20/2022 and 12/21/2022, 
I received two approval letters for the fust phase of the selection process for dental 
[residencies] .... 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director's decision concerning the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner's briefreiterates his intention to develop a 
company that sells training and supply products to dental assistants, emphasizing that his enterprise 
will serve areas of critical economic concern in Florida and have an economic impact because it will 
be "part of a robust production chain." The record does not include documentation to support these 
assertions. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not provided data or 
studies establishing how his proposed endeavor will impact economic areas of concern in Florida or 
elsewhere in the United States. He has not provided evidence of similar successful business models 
or other comparable examples to demonstrate the potential broader implications of his proposal, nor 
has he provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that his proposal has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. In addition, as explained previously-and as acknowledged by 
the Director-the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is vague. On appeal, the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is further clouded by the fact that he states he intends to participate in a dental residency at 
a university in the United States; it is not clear whether the Petitioner intends to embark on an 
entrepreneurial venture or commit to the requirements of university residency. Because the evidence 
of record does not allow for a full evaluation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we cannot 
determine whether the endeavor has national importance. We conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, nor does it establish that the endeavor has substantial merit. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the 
identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-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). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 warrants a national interest waiver. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6