dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 34511556 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
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 he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and asserts that he is 
eligible for the benefit sought. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by 
a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 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 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. 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(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. 
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 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 determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal accordingly. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance 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. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor was to establish and operate a 
dental practice that that will "provide innovative and life-changing dental implant procures based on 
modem techniques that dramatically reduce rehabilitation time." In support, the Petitioner submitted, 
in pertinent part, a business plan, corporate documents, a resume, work experience letters, letters in 
support, and industry reports and articles about dentists and the dental industry in the United States. 
The Director issued a request for evidence in which they requested, in part, additional evidence to 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had national importance. While the Director noted 
that the Petitioner's intentions were to open and operate dentist offices in three locations, the proposed 
endeavor did not indicate "broad societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichments." The Director 
also determined that while the Petitioner had stated that he intended to employ 40 individuals over the 
span of five years at three different locations in the United States, the evidence in the record did not 
sufficiently demonstrate the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor extended 
beyond the Petitioner's business intentions, employer, or clients to have a broader impact on the local 
or national economy as contemplated by Dhanasar. 2 
In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner asserted that he would develop a business in the 
United States which would provide "innovative and life-changing dental implant procedures based on 
modem techniques that dramatically reduce rehabilitation in the states of Florida and New York, 
qualified HUBZone, which links his proposed endeavor to a national initiative and, therefore, 
National Importance." (emphasis in original). The Petitioner further stated that his company "is set 
to transform the landscape of dental care by providing secure and permanent replacement teeth that 
2 The Director also requested additional documentation to establish the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 
2 
enable patients to regain normal chewing and speaking functions" focusing on "advanced, less­
invasive dental implant techniques." 
The Director denied the petition. The Director acknowledged and discussed the Petitioner's 
submission of evidentiary documents. Nevertheless, the Director determined that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver because he did not meet the 3-prong 
Dhanasar framework. In regard to prong one, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor had 
national importance, as the record lacked independent objective evidence of the Petitioner's future 
plans. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the potential prospective 
impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor to develop his dental practice had implications 
beyond the individuals the Petitioner would serve. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director "did 
not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard." An appeal 
must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable 
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that he has provided evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for a national interest waiver, he does not specify, as required, 
in what way the Director applied this stricter standard. 
The Petitioner further highlights on appeal the evidence he submitted in support of his petition and in 
response to the Director's request for evidence and maintains that he has demonstrated the proposed 
endeavor's national importance. He again asserts that his proposed endeavor "is set to transform the 
landscape of dental care by providing secure and permanent replacement teeth that enable patients to 
regain normal chewing and speaking functions." However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence 
on appeal to demonstrate that his work as a dentist in the context of his own dental practice would 
result in an impact of regional or national importance or that he would operate on such a scale as to 
rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes on appeal the shortage of dentistry professionals, and the importance 
of the dental industry and immigrant entrepreneurs, and claims that his endeavor impacts the national 
economy. As previously mentioned, in determining 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." Id. at 889. Although the 
Petitioner states his endeavor is of national importance, he has not, for example, sufficiently explained 
how he will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. 
economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. While the Petitioner referenced 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) HUBZone program, he has not shown that the program 
confirms the national impact of her proposed endeavor. The SBA program aims to award a certain 
percentage of federal contract dollars to HUB Zone-certified companies. 3 The record does not indicate 
3 The Small Business Administration (SBA) website provides: "The HUBZone program fuels small business growth in 
historically underutilized business zones with a goal of awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone­
certified companies each year." The SBA website further explains that "[j]oining the HUBZone program makes [a] 
business eligible to compete for the program's set-aside contracts" and that "HUBZone-certified businesses also get a I 0% 
price evaluation preference in full and open contract competitions." https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-
3 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involves HUB Zone-certified companies or has any association 
to federal contracts. To the extent that he is arguing his proposed endeavor has the potential to 
positively impact historically underutilized business areas, in part, by preserving or creating jobs, the 
record does not include sufficient evidence showing any projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation directly attributable to his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance or will 
likely impact the insurance field. It is also important to note that the shortage of dentistry professionals 
does not render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar 
framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department 
of Labor through the labor certification process. 
While the evidence of record indicates that the Petitioner has extensive experience and an 
understanding of dentistry, including dental implants, the record does not include a plan or other 
indication of how the Petitioner will operate a dental practice that will impact businesses or the 
economy at the level of national importance contemplated under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. The Petitioner has not established on appeal that his intent to apply his knowledge to his 
prospective clients is an activity that will have a broad impact on the economy. The record does not 
offer evidence sufficient to translate how the Petitioner's specific work stands to sufficiently impact 
U.S. interests or the relevant dentistry business more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that his "business achievements and expertise throughout over 
eleven (11) years of work experience" have set him up to "help the U.S. stay competitive by bringing 
competitive services, helping develop the country, and producing income for the U.S. economy." 
While the Petitioner stresses his credentials and work experience, which were also highlighted in his 
resume, work experience letters, and letters in support, such evidence addresses the Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, education, and experience; these are considerations under Dhanasar's second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Evidence of the Petitioner's credentials and experience in dentistry 
does not demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or establish that the impact of 
the endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's patients and prospective employers. In sum, the 
Petitioner primarily focuses on second prong factors that demonstrate his knowledge and experience. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence he submitted in support of his 
petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend its benefits beyond his customers and the companies he elects to work with to enhance societal 
welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
assistance-programs/hubzone-program, accessed on May 10, 2024, a copy of the on line material has been incorporated 
into the record of proceedings. 
4 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reason 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) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 a noncitizen is otherwise ineligible). The petition will remain 
denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5