dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 1, 2024 In Re: 31673489 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a Dental Assistant, 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 warranted a waiver of the labor certification requirements for an EB-2 
professional with an advanced degree. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts eligibility and resubmits evidence previously in the record. 
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 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 l&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Id 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. The sole 
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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In her letter to the Director, the Petitioner stated: 
My proposed effort is to open a company (Cooperative) in the field of Training and 
Training for Dental Assistants with the aim of assisting in the preparation of 
professionals to work in the market. Qualification and improvement courses for 
professionals in the area (foreign dentists and foreign dental assistants) will also be 
offered online and in-person, which can reach the entire American territory. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, it lacked 
the scope and impact necessary to rise to the level of national importance as defined in Dhanasar. 
Additionally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient documentary 
evidence to establish that she is well placed to conduct the endeavor or that on balance, the proposed 
endeavor warranted a waiver of labor certification and job offer requirements. 
Based on a de novo review, we will adopt and affirm the Director's decision that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that their proposed endeavor had potential prospective impact rising to a level of national 
importance. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Prado-Gonzalez v. 
INS, 75 F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996) (joining "every court of appeals that has considered this issue" 
holding that an appellate body may affirm the lower court's decision for the reasons set forth therein); 
Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the 
decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the 
issue"). Below we provide individualized consideration to the Petitioner's appellate claims. 
As the Director correctly concluded, the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate with material, 
relevant, or probative evidence that their proposed endeavor was nationally important. On appeal, the 
2 
Petitioner provides a brief discussing the Director's decision and identifying areas in which she 
disagreed with the Director's conclusions regarding her endeavor, her position to enact the proposed 
endeavor, and the broader implications of her undertaking. She further submits evidence already in 
the record and analyzed in the Director's decision incorporated here by reference. 
In her brief on appeal, the Petitioner requests that we reconsider the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor because her envisioned cooperative will "encourage good practices in the 
profession while building an increasingly better environment." The Petitioner goes on to 
"acknowledge the lack of evidence demonstrating" that her training programs are "not available or 
superior to those already existing in the United States." She emphasizes that the difference between 
her proposed cooperative and existing U.S. training programs is the "direct integration between 
training and employment opportunities." While the Petitioner makes the claim that her endeavor is 
unique in providing trainees with employment, she has not provided evidence to show that other 
training programs, colleges, or universities in the United States do not offer the same or similar 
services. 
The Petitioner further states that the creation of a "direct employability channel" for those who 
complete her training program is of national importance because there is a shortage of qualified dental 
assistants. She states that her endeavor in training and placing new dental assistants will expand access 
to quality affordable healthcare, enhance the workforce through specialized training, encourage 
preventative health, contribute to the general well-being of the population, and contribute to the 
advancement of knowledge and practices in the field through research. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments that qualified dental assistants are important for the 
nation's quality of life and societal well-being. However, shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. The Petitioner's 
assertion that her proposed endeavor will provide increased access to affordable healthcare is 
unsupported by the record. There is no evidence in the record that establishes that increasing the 
number of trained dental assistants in the specified region will have an impact on the cost of health 
care or increase the number of available dentists. Moreover, the Petitioner acknowledged that the 
training courses she offers are not dissimilar from those already in existence in the United States. 
While the Petitioner generally references participating in research to advance the dental industry, she 
does not identify a specific research project, the time and resources needed for the research project, or 
the national implications of the proposed research. 
The Petitioner reiterates on appeal that her endeavor will have far reaching economic impacts that rise 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner states that as a training and placement cooperative 
her business is an important catalyst for labor in the economically depressed area of I I ______ Florida. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claims on appeal that her payment of 
wages and commission of $1,148,860 over a five-year period would add to the overall economic health 
of the area in which she proposes to operate. However, she has not demonstrated that this amount 
represents an economic impact at the national or regional level through objective evidence. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's endeavor 
3 
is a training and job placement cooperative with specific attention to the training and placement of 
dental assistants. The benefit of the training offered appears limited to the students, the dental offices 
that employ them, and the patients who experience their care. As the Director observed, the Petitioner 
has not adequately demonstrated the reach of the Petitioner's endeavor outside of her clients. In 
Dhanasar we discussed how teaching, like professional training, would not impact the field of 
education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. The Petitioner's 
endeavor suffers from the same infirmity. Here, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate any 
broader implications from the Petitioner's endeavor outside of her students and dental offices that 
employ them. Moreover, the Petitioner has admitted that the training courses provided by her 
proposed endeavor are readily available in the United States and have no broader pedagogical 
implications for the dental industry. While the Petitioner has shown her endeavor will have some 
economic impact specific to her clients, she has not demonstrated that the impact would have broader 
implications for the national economy. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her 
proposed endeavor is of national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar and we will dismiss her 
appeal on that basis. 
Because the Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor has national importance, she is not 
eligible for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. We reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the evidence of record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4