dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 5, 2025 In Re: 34837249 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess 
a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 ofDhanasar, 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 (USCTS) 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to continue his work in the dental field to improve 
the oral health of underprivileged communities. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. However, the Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework, and therefore is not eligible for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
failed to review the totality of the evidence and failed to abide by the requisite standard of review and 
in part, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. Upon de novo review, we 
conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance as set 
forth in the Dhanasar 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. Id. The Petitioner 
states that his proposed endeavor is to work in the dental field in the United States; increasing access 
to dental services to improve the oral health of underprivileged communities. The record includes 
information on the importance of and disparities in oral healthcare and information on the dental 
industry; along with government initiatives related to this field. We conclude that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. Before we discuss potential prospective impact, we note that the Director 
determined there was a material change to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner 
disagrees with this determination. In the initial filing, the proposed endeavor is stated as, providing 
"consulting services for dental professionals through the dental program I Ito 
contribute to the improvement of the oral and emotional health of the low-income population and those 
located in vulnerable areas to provide them with quality dental care through low-cost comprehensive 
plans." The Petitioner also has a plan called I Iwhere he seeks to create 
dental offices in different locations. In response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted evidence of a new business; a dental practice. The Petitioner contends that this new business 
is not a material change, as the Director concluded, but the vehicle to achieve his original proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner's RFE response, including the proposed endeavor statement and national 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
importance statement include information about the initial programs, however the business plan does 
not. Nevertheless, the business plan seeks to further the goals of the two programs in providing access 
to dental care to low-income individuals and creating various offices throughout Florida. Therefore, 
we will analyze the business plan as part of his proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner and those that wrote letters on his behalf place considerable 
emphasis on the overall importance of the field and industry and not on the impact of the proposed 
endeavor itself. The Petitioner contends that he provided "vast evidence to demonstrate that the 
endeavor [the Petitioner] proposes to undertake has national importance." He specifically highlights 
various articles in the record in support of his proposed endeavor; however, the articles are about the 
field and industry as a whole. For example, he submitted an article entitled, "Oral Health in America. 
Advances and Challenges" and a U.S. government list on basic strategies for collective impact on oral 
health. Although this provides good background information, demonstrates the importance of the 
industry, and provides evidence of substantial merit; it does not speak to the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor and its impact on the industry. 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 [Petitioner] proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
improperly relies upon the importance of the industry to further establish the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor. Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's 
broader impact on the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national 
importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner intends to work in 
this field, but there is insufficient evidence to establish that he will broadly impact this field. Without 
sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the industry, 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and 
will have substantial positive economic effects. 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 890. The 
Petitioner contends that his dental practice will hire twenty-one employees by its fifth year of operation 
and that he will pursue his endeavor in an economically depressed area as he contends that Florida is 
considered to be economically distressed. He asserts that his company will be headquartered in I 
Florida and that, "Florida, in general, is a state with many areas designated as HUBZones .... " In 
addition, he will "establish a business and provide employment in areas where it is most needed." 
Here, the record does not establish that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects as the 
record does not establish his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide 
substantial economic benefits in Florida. Specifically, the record does not support that the direct 
creation of twenty-one additional jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the 
company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element 
of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner submitted a letter from an IRS tax 
professional that states the proposal ___________ is a valuable asset from a tax 
perspective. However, the record does not include an in-depth proposal for I I
I I for us to analyze from a tax perspective. The letter indicates that there could be tax 
3 
benefits associated with the proposal, but there are no specifics from which we would be able to 
analyze if the prospective tax benefits of this specific program would equate to "substantial positive 
economic effects." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In addition, the record emphasizes that the Petitioner's business will impact HUBZones as he states, 
there are many in Florida. However, the Petitioner has not established that his business will be located 
in a HUBZone. Further, he did not indicate that his endeavor would participate in the HUBZone 
program or that it would be eligible to do so. While it appears that the Petitioner may have intended 
to equate a designated HUBZone with an "economically depressed area," the record does not support 
a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison. The Petitioner has not otherwise provided evidence 
that the area where his company will operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a 
significant population of workers in that area, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax 
revenue. While his intentions are meritorious, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence 
to support these claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner's claims of his proposed endeavor's 
economic impact have not been established through independent and objective evidence. The 
Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide these 
benefits to the United States. 
The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. We agree that the oral 
healthcare field is a matter of national importance. However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence of the impact of his proposed endeavor on these national initiatives. As we addressed above, 
the relevant question for determining national importance 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 [Petitioner] proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The 
Petitioner's reference to "a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance 
or is the subject of national initiatives" in the context of determining whether the proposed endeavor 
may have national importance is misplaced because-regardless of whether a generalized industry or 
field may have national importance or is the subject of a national initiative the record must nevertheless 
establish how "the specific endeavor that [the Petitioner] proposes to undertake" may have "national 
or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90 ( emphasis added). 
The record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will broadly impact the dental 
industry or significantly reduce the existing challenges that the record highlights. Instead, the business 
plan discusses how the Petitioner plans to operate his business, providing dental healthcare services to 
clients. In Dhanasar, 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. 
Similarly, without sufficient documentary evidence of a broader impact to the dental industry, the 
record establishes the impact is limited to the Petitioner's company and his prospective clients. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the national importance element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
4 
Lastly, we note that the Petitioner highlights the Director's discussion of the various letters as part of 
the national importance analysis. The Petitioner submitted letters demonstrating interest in his 
proposed endeavor along with letters that highlight the Petitioner's experience and skillset. We agree 
with the Petitioner, that this evidence is more relevant to Dhanasar 's prong two analysis, on whether 
the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, than a national importance 
analysis. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and 
considered the record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Because the Petitioner is ineligible for a national interest waiver, we need not reach, and 
therefore reserve, remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5