dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19993001 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that 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. 
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 of job offer-
(i) Nationalinterestwaiver. ... [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. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent regulations define the tenn "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 impmiance, 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 ce1iification. 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 offerorforthepetitionerto 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 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor ce1iification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the issue to be dete1mined on appeal 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 eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner initially provided a statement indicating: 
My career plan in the United States is to work with American dental clinics that require 
my specialized knowledge, years of experience, and significant expertise. Throughout 
my career as a Dentist, I have gained intimate knowledge of the Argentinian dental 
industry and have in-depth knowledge of dentistry, endodontics, prosthetic dentis1ly, 
implant placement, oral surgery, aesthetic dentistry, dental consulting, oral health, writing 
and editing, personnel management, and leadership. By applying my skills in U.S. dental 
facilities, I will be able to contribute to the high-growth American healthcare industry and 
even be able to offer instructional advice to aspiring dental professionals. I also intend to 
continue implementing ingenious strategies while maintaining positive relationships with 
my professional colleagues and identifying any business oppmtunities through extensive 
research. This is indicative of the future benefits I will bring to the dental industry and 
the overall healthcare sector in the U.S. 
My ultimate goal is to open a private practice in an area with shortage of dentists; thereby, 
improving the dental health in the community. Also, I will provide direct and indirect 
work to people related to the dental office, such as secretaries, assistants, associate 
dentists, and specialists that will work as a part of the dental team. My ability to work 
part time as a Faculty Member at an institution of higher learning will allow me to train 
future dentists and show them how to deal with complex dental cases .... 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny, the Petitioner submitted a business p Ian reflecting: 
Upon completing his course of study at the University I I [the Petitioner] plans 
to open a practice in the area ... , which will primarily serve low-income residents, 
especially those who speak Spanish, as there are few practices in the area that can help 
Spanish-speaking patients who have limited English proficiency. In this way, [the 
Petitioner's] services will improve the dentistry industry's quality service for patients 
across the nation, while also helping mitigate the nation's shortage of dentists. 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor "is to open a dental clinic in an 
underserved area designated as a high-score Dental Health HPSA [Health Professional Shortage Area], 
drawing directly on his specialization in Urgent Care and Maxillo-Dental Prosthesis" and "will directly 
address a local shortage of dental care and have positive economic benefits." The Director determined 
that the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not its national importance. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown 
the national impmiance aspect of his proposed endeavor. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. In Dhanasar, we 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking 
may have national impmiance 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. 
With respect to the Petitioner's proposed care and treatment of patients, the record does not 
demonstrate that it offers broader implications to support a finding of national impmiance. The record 
reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence relating to oral health in the United States. In 
determining national importance, however, 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. Furthermore, the 
record contains documentation relating to oral health in New York and Medicaid, poverty, 
unemployment, and other demographic infmmation for the I I New York area. While the 
Petitioner's business plan claims that his endeavor "will potentially impact the U.S.," such as "[a]id 
in the diagnosis and treatment of patients' teeth, gums, and related parts of the mouth," "consult and 
dealt with complex oral health cases," and"[ e ]ducate people on how to prevent oral diseases, as well 
as provide instruction on taking care of the teeth and gums, in addition to suggesting lifestyle choices 
that affect oral health," this does not establish that his dental office would impact the dental field or 
oral health industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves. 
Moreover, 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. 
Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's private practice as a 
dentist does not meetthe "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framewmk 
Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may 
properly be considered to have national importance. Id. at 889. In the case here, however, the 
Petitioner did not show how operating a clinic in an underserved area would have a broader impact in 
the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner contends that he "demonstrated a nationally recognized need for dentists in 
I INY," "the U.S. government has assigned the city ofl laDentalHealthHPSA score 
of 21, and a HPSA FTE Shortage score of 25.57," and "[t]his demonstrates a nationally recognized 
need for more than 25 full-time dentists inl I While the evidence might relate to the 
substantial merit of his proposed endeavor, the shortage of dentists and other health care professionals 
in thel INew York area or the United States does not render his potential employment 
4 
nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortage of qualified workers is 
directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. Again, 
the Petitioner did not establish how working as a dentist in INew York would have broader 
implications to the dental field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that his business plan shows that his clinic will "hire five U.S. 
workers aside from the dentist, accounting for $520,000 in wages by its fifth year of operations." The 
Petitioner, however, has not shown that his proposed dental clinic's future staffing levels stand to 
provide substantial economic benefits to thel IN ew York area or the United States. Although 
the business plan claims that the clinic will employ a total of six individuals in an economically 
depressed area, the Petitioner has not established that the clinic would employ a significant population 
of workers in the area or that his endeavor would off er the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through such employment levels or business activity. Further, while the business 
plan indicates projected revenue of $1.4 million by year five, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined inDhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose.4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong oftheDhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated that he 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. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (197 6) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); sec also Ma tier ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
5