dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 25, 2023 In Re: 28400618 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dental healthcare professional, 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 EB-2 classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director ofthe Nebraska 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. 
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 l&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)(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 also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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 conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that she intends "to work as a 
healthcare professional in dentistry and give access to quality dental care to American patients."2 She 
stated: "I will also continue my career in the dental industry by entering the American market by opening 
my own laboratory that will specialize in the manufacturing of indirect bonding technique dental braces, 
and other state-of-the-art orthodontic appliances that will be available to patients and other orthodontists." 
The Petitioner further asserted that she plans "to open a laboratory to make orthodontic appliances and 
indirect bonding guides individualized braces. The laboratory will generate jobs as the demand of 
equipment orders grows, and I will hire more technicians to perform the individualized indirect gluing 
technique." 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that she o ened ~-------~2022. She further explains 
that she signed "a contract with in June 2022. After filing my caseJ Ibecame 
manager of The Petitioner further states:~--------~ 
My company I Ihas a contract with I My contract with 
I Iconsists of laboratory 3D scanning and computer work for 
orthodontic appliances and indirect bonding guides individualized braces. Design of 
segmented arches in 3D models and aligner treatment planning in 3D software which 
is approved by reviewing orthodontist, Dr. A-B-. 
At Dr. A-B-'s clinic, I started to work closely with Dr. R-S-A-.... Dr. R-S-A-, current 
owner of the L-----J brand, proposes me and my company a partnership to 
jointly developl,__ ____.fand thus become the second brand in the world market to 
offer Clear Aligners for the age group of 6 to 10 years old (besides Invisalign). 
The Petitioner's formation ofl Iher company's contract withl Iand her 
collaboration with Dr. R-S-A- all post-date the filing of the petition. 3 Eligibility, however, must be 
demonstrated at the time of filing the benefit request. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
2 The record includes a January 2020 "Employment Agreement" between~------~ and the Petitioner 
offering her "the position of 'Orthodontic Assistant and Clinical Consultant."' As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver 
of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we consider 
information about this position to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her 
proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 The Form 1-140 petition in this matter was filed in June 2021. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted her business plan, entitled 
"Business Casel IThis business plan includes industry and market analyses, information 
about her business proposal, costs and infrastructure projections, marketing strategies, and a 
description of company personnel. Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates 
employing five personnel, but she did not elaborate on this projection or provide evidence supporting 
the need for these employees. 
The record includes information about the occupational outlook for dentists, orthodontic treatment, 
dental care health professional shortage areas, the projected supply of dentists in the United States, 
staffing shortages in the dental industry, the U.S. dental economy, the demand for healthcare workers 
in Illinois, and the top ten states for the highest demand for healthcare professionals. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided articles discussing future demand for dentists, the U.S. states most in need of 
dentists, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the dental industry, the pandemic's effect on the 
supply of dental hygienists, the economic outlook and emerging issues in dentistry, and stagnant 
employment in the dental industry. She also submitted information about dentists in the United States; 
the global dental equipment market; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
worker shortages; trends in the dental industry; the shortage of dentists in the United Kingdom; and 
the ways shortages in dentistry are prohibiting practices from meeting patient demand. The record 
therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided letters of support from E-L-N-, A-B-, T-E-, R-V-M-, C-A-A-P-, 
M-C-P-, E-S-, R-S-A-, A-R-, F-X-V-, G-G-, M-M-S-J-, and J-A-S- discussing her orthodontics 
capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from A-B-, associate professor atO
I !college, in support of her national interest waiver. A-B- contended that the 
Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because her generic occupation of dentist and the 
industry in which she works stand to contribute to our nation's healthcare system. For example, A-E­
stated that "[ d]ental health has national importance as it is linked to the overall health of individuals." 
The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, 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. The letter from A-B- does not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's 
specific proposed work offers broader implications in her field, U.S. public health benefits, or 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her undertaking stands to have broader implications in the field, significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. 
3 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that her statements and documents relating to her proposed 
endeavor reflect "a nationally important and substantially meritorious plan of contributing her 
professional talent in the United States, in the field of dentistry/orthodontics." She contends that her 
undertaking has "the potential to improve the oral health of thousands of children each year. Through her 
company, she has thus already begun building her broad network of clinics to serve, as well as her 
initiative of bringing an innovative and beneficial product to the American market." In addition, the 
Petitioner argues that the evidence shows "the value that the Petitioner] stands to bring - and in fact, is 
already bringing - to the U.S. by way of ' She also claims that her indirect bonding 
technique "can be very impactful across._______.national clinics." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide 3D indirect bonding laboratory work and 
orthodontic services, she has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 . Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company 
and its business pai1ners or clientele to impact her field, the dental industry, U.S. public health, or our 
country's economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. While 
the Petitioner claims that her company has growth potential, she has not presented evidence indicating 
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. Id. at 890. In addition, although 
the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor "will generate jobs," she has not offered sufficient evidence that 
the area where her company will operate is economically depressed, that she would employ a 
significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the frrst prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
4 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
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. 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. 
5