dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25965824 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 27, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dental healthcare worker, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree . 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. 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 the record did not 
establish either the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification or that a waiver of the classification's 
job offer requirement would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 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 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he is a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, and as such did not establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification. The 
Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under any of the three required 
prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework and, therefore, did not establish that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would be in the national interest. We reserve on the question of the Petitioner's 
EB-2 eligibility 2 and examine below whether he has established his eligibility under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 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"). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement is warranted. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence, 
we have reviewed and considered each one. 
As to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, he indicated on his Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker that he intends to work as a "dentist." In his initial Professional Plan & Statement, he further 
states that he will work as a "Healthcare Professional in Dentistry." He states that healthcare 
professionals in dentistry "diagnose and treat problems with patients' teeth, gums, and related parts of 
the mouth, as well as deal with complex cases or assist in surgical procedures." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a new "Definitive 
Statement" in which he states that he intends to establish a dental clinic in Florida for which he will 
serve as chief executive officer (CEO). He also provided a business plan regarding the establishment 
of this clinic. The business plan states that as CEO his job duties will be to"[ d]etermine and formulate 
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 The regulations define an advanced degree as "any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree" above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Additionally, the regulations provide that a U. S. 
bachelor's degree or the foreign equivalent followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty is 
equivalent to a master's degree. Id. To establish the requisite experience, the regulations require that the Petitioner submit 
"letters from current and former employer(s)" that include "the name, address, and title of the writer. and a specific 
description of the duties performed." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). If this evidence is unavailable, other documentation will be 
considered. Id. In the Director's decision. he found that the Petitioner established that he had obtained the equivalent of 
a U.S. bachelor's degree, but that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner had at least five years of progressive 
experience following this degree. Although both the Petitioner's appeal brief and the initial filing contain passing 
statements that the Petitioner is "an individual of exceptional ability," the Petitioner did not discuss any of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) used to establish exceptional ability nor did he provide evidence to establish that he 
meets the regulatory criteria. As such, he did not meet his burden to establish that he is an individual of exceptional ability. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
2 
policies and provide overall direction" of the business; "[p]]Ian, direct, or coordinate operational 
activities at the highest level of management;" and "[d]irect and coordinate activities of businesses or 
departments concerned with the production, pricing, sales, or distribution of products," among other 
duties. 
In analyzing the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director found that the 
Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor as a dentist but not its national 
importance. The Director found that the evidence overall did not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the field of dentistry or that it has significant 
potential to provide substantial positive economic effects. The Director specifically excluded the 
business plan, submitted in response to the RFE, that altered the proposed endeavor to serving as CEO 
of a dental clinic. In considering whether the Petitioner had established his endeavor's national 
importance, the Director found that the plan postdated the filing of the petition and the Director stated 
that "[s]ubsequent developments or events in the career cannot retroactively establish that [the 
Petitioner] was already eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date," citing to Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
As stated above, the Petitioner asserts generally on appeal that the Director did not apply the proper 
standard of proof and erroneously applied the law. However, the Petitioner does not support these 
assertions with specificity as to the record or to the Director's conclusions. The Petitioner also asserts 
on appeal that the Director did not give due regard to the evidence in the record, including the 
Petitioner's business plan, letters ofrecommendation, and the submitted industry reports and articles. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Although the Petitioner discusses his business plan as part of the evidence to which the Director did 
not "give due regard," he does not address or make any arguments to overcome the Director's finding 
that the business plan constitutes a subsequent career development. Therefore, we consider the claim 
that the business plan helps establish eligibility as of the time of filing to be abandoned and we will 
not consider the business plan submitted in response to the RFE on appeal. See Matter of R-A-M-, 
25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 
F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th 
Cir. 1998). 
Further, the Petitioner's letters of recommendation, written by his own professional associates, do not 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Primarily, the letter writers speak to his 
experience and skill in the dental field. None of the writers describe in detail the proposed endeavor 
or its potential impact. By contrast, the petitioner in Dhanasar submitted expert letters from 
individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that described the national 
3 
importance of the petitioner's specific area of research. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Moreover, evidence of the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and expertise generally relates to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
[noncitizen]" and whether he is well-positioned to advance it. Id. at 890. 
Similarly, the expert opinion letter from D.M.D., M.D.S.C., does not articulate 
how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have national importance. I !asserts 
that there is a national shortage of dentists in the United States, that Brazil's dentists are "among the 
best in the world," and that this establishes the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
However, these assertions relate to the dental industry overall and do not establish that the proposed 
endeavor itself will have a "broad impact" on the field of dentistry in the United States. As a matter 
of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less 
weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. 
Here, the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as it conflates the importance of the dental 
industry overall with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
Finally, as the Petitioner notes on appeal, the record contains many articles and industry reports about 
the lack of affordable dental care in the United States, the shortage of dentists and dental healthcare 
providers, and the economic impact of immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. However, 
this evidence again relates to the dental industry overall and to the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead we focus on the "specific 
endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor of working as a dentist 
and do not support the endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner's primary contention on appeal is that the Director applied a higher standard of proof 
than the preponderance of the evidence standard. In support, he largely restates arguments already 
presented in his initial brief and RFE response. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in the 
record and conclude that although the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor has national 
importance, he offers little corroborative evidence or explanation to support his claims. While the 
Petitioner provided a significant volume of evidence, eligibility for the benefit sought is not 
determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also the quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). Accordingly, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We 
acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, 
having found that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong, we 
will not address those arguments here. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies 
the second or third Dhanasar prong, as well as whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"). 
4 
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 that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5