dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20199211 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 9, 2022 
Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a "medical scientist in the field of dentistry," 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 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 she 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 a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
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 ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "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). 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 1, 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. 2 
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 importance, 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 certification. In performing 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To establish that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement, a petitioner must go beyond 
showing their expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute. individuals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of 
their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 
or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by 
demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field of expertise. See 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 886 n.3. 
2 
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 offer or for the petitioner to 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 certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
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 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a part-time professor in the I Dental 
School (Brazil) Distance Teaching Program. In May 2019, she became "a foll-time student in the two­
year Advanced Education in General Dentistry Program at the University 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner initially asserted that she intends to continue "working as a medical scientist in the 
dental field in the United States. Medical scientists conduct research dealing with understanding 
human diseases and improving overall human health. We engage in clinical investigation, research 
and developments, or other related activities." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated: 
Currently I am enrolled in the Advanced Education in General Dentistry Training 
Program at the University ________________ The goal of 
this program is to provide training beyond the level of pre-doctoral education in Oral 
Health Care using applied basic and behavior sciences. . . . The program is designed 
to expand the graduates' knowledge and skills to enable them to provide 
comprehensive oral health care to a wide range of population groups. 
* * * 
I plan to continue working within the health system as a Medical Scientist in the field 
of dentistry applying my skills, education, experience, and knowledge to improve 
Americans' oral health by using top notch dentistry techniques while in clinic care, 
doing research that have [sic] the potential to find alternative treatments and solutions 
for oral health that will impact all Americans, and mentoring others peers [sic] ensuring 
those techniques and research are being mirrored. 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
One of my plans is to provide dental care for the underserved population of the U.S .... 
___ New York is amongst the poorest cities in the nation and more than half of 
its children live in poverty. I have been living in thel NY area for two years 
while doing my Dental education and that put me in highly [sic] advantage if I decide 
to stay in the city to find a position as a Medical Scientist in the field of dentistry. 
My goal is also to work as a dentist either at a dental practice or for a government 
agency. I will also consider opening my own dental practice and teach my colleagues 
as an Associate Professor or Professor in the future. 
* * * 
As proof of my intentions to continue working in the U.S. as a Medical Scientist in the 
field with dentistry, I have applied for the Master of Science Health Professions 
Education Program at the University __________ and my admission is 
currently being reviewed. 
I have also been admitted to the 12-month General Practice Dentistry Program at the 
University ________________ scheduled to begin on June 
23, 2021. 
Furthermore, I have been also offered two positions to work as a General Dentist and 
as an Associate Dentist at two different dental practices in Florida. 
The record includes the Petitioner's admission letter to the General Practice Residency Program at the 
University I I She also presented unexecuted 
I employment agreements with and I 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged both the substantial merit and national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor "as a Medical Scientist in the field of Dentistry." 
However, the Director explained that the Petitioner's "proposed endeavor of working as a dentist in 
I NY or Florida" did not offer broader implications or substantial positive economic effects 
that would be considered commensurate with national importance. 5 
4 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 will consider information about her prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in 
which she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
5 In addition to proposing to work as a Medical Scientist in the field of dentistry, the Petitioner asserted that her endeavor 
would involve practicing as a dentist and teaching as a professor. While both of these endeavors have substantial merit 
the record does not establish that her proposed clinical and teaching work stand to impact the dentistry field or the U.S. 
healthcare industry more broadly. as opposed to being limited to the patients she serves and her dental students. 
Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's clinical work and teaching 
activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Likewise. 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. 
4 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner has demonstrated both the 
substantial merit and national importance of her proposed work as a medical scientist advancing oral 
health research. For example, the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit 
of her proposed research has broader implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others 
in the field through medical journals and conferences. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner's proposed oral health research meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. As previously noted, 
her proposed clinical and teaching work do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the Petitioner's proposed oral health research offers broader implications for the field (unlike 
her proposed work as a dentist or teacher), our analysis under this prong will focus solely on whether 
she is well positioned to advance her proposed research relating to alternative treatments and solutions 
for oral health. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic and training 
credentials, employment experience, Brazilian professional certifications and licenses, published 
articles, and presented work. She also offered letters of support discussing her oral health research 
projects. For the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Director's determination that the 
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed 
research under Dhanasar's second prong. 
In letters supporting the petition, several references discussed the Petitioner's research projects. 6 For 
example, regarding the Petitioner's work aimed at evaluating the clinical usefulness of 
I I in eriodontal surgery, I I clinical pharmacology professor at 
University indicated that the Petitioner and her eers "are desi ning a novel study about the 
benefits of which is processed to be 
used as a for surgical wounds. Although this research is still on the laboratory 
bench, the in vitro results are very promising." I I also noted that "[f]urther clinical 
investigation is being planned and will involve a multicenter collaboration among universities in 
Brazil," but she did not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded in the in the dentistry field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to 
assistant professor at University! lstated that the Petitioner's "study focused on examining 
the impact of this condition on tissues of the periodontal apparatus. This research guided other 
clinicians and dental professionals to control the periodontal health of , • I patients 
to increase their quality of life." Whilel I asserted that the Petitioner's "research is so 
importance [sic] that it has been of [sic] cited and referred by other researchers and clinicians," the 
record does not include citation evidence to support his claim. Nor doesl I provide specific 
examples indicating that the Petitioner's research findings have generated positive interest among 
6 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
relevant parties, have been implemented by others in the field, or otherwise reflect a record of success 
or progress rendering her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Regarding the Petitioner's research involving I postoperative dental pain 
management, professor at University! indicated that he and the 
Petitioner have coauthored a study that "is in the final stages of review for publication, is of great 
importance for the dental community, and may mark a before and after in how pain management 
should be handled by dentists! I I further stated that the 
Petitioner's "collaboration in this study has been crucial for its development," but the record does not 
indicate that their work has affected pain management practices in the dental community or otherwise 
constitutes a record of success or progress in her research field. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's education, the record indicates that she received a Dental Surgeon 
diploma from the University I 7 a a Master's degree in Clinical Pharmacology from I 
University I I and postgraduate training in Oral Implantology, Periodontology, and 
Endodontics. While the Petitioner's education renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification, she has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to 
demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor. In Dhanasar, the 
record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two master of science 
degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. 
We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a 
finding. 
With regard to her work experience, the record indicates that the Petitioner has served as a professor 
at bothl !Dental School andl !practiced dentistry for both private and public 
clinics, and worked as a periodontist for the Brazilian Army. While the Petitioner's documentation 
indicates that she has clinical experience in the dentistry field, her evidence is not sufficient to 
demonstrate a record of success in academic research or a level of interest in her work from relevant 
parties signifying that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research relating to alternative 
treatments and solutions for oral health. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she has established "by a preponderance of evidence" that she 
"meets all the criteria for a national interest waiver" specified in the Dhanasar framework. With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that she meets the eligibility 
requirements of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I& N 
Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner must show that her claims are "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met her burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). 
7 The record includes an academic credential evaluation indicating that this diploma is the foreign equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor's degree. 
6 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director's RFE was deficient because it "referred only partially to 
the evidence originally submitted" and included "contradictory statements." In the decision denying 
the petition, the Director acknowledged the typographical errors in the RFE's discussion of the 
Petitioner's ineligibility under Dhanasar's second prong. Nonetheless, the Petitioner's response to 
the RFE included arguments and evidence specifically addressing her eligibility under prong two of 
Dhanasar. 8 We note that the Director may, as a matter of discretion, request additional evidence if 
the record does not establish eligibility, but he is not required to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). 
Regardless, the Petitioner has had an opportunity to address the Director's prong two analysis on 
appeal, and we review the record on a de novo basis. The appeal brief, however, does not specifically 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact relating to the Director's denial notice's 
discussion of the evidence under Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted oral health research in both Brazil and the 
United States, but she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor. While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some 
way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every 
individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for 
instance, the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of 
success in similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties support such a finding. Id. 
at 890. The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently demonstrated that her published and presented 
work has served as an impetus for progress in the dentistry field or that it has generated substantial 
positive discourse in the academic community. Nor does the evidence show that her research findings 
have been frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise constitute a record of success or 
progress in advancing research relating to alternative treatments and solutions for oral health. As the 
record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed 
research endeavor, she has not established that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, 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 
certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that she is eligible for a waiver due to the impracticality of 
labor certification, her education and dentistry skills, her experience in the field, and the significance 
of her proposed work. However, as the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is 
not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third 
prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
8 Despite the RFE's typographical errors, the Petitioner's RFE response specifically stated: "We will once again go over 
the abundant amount of evidence that shows [the Petitioner] is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor." The 
RFE response offered a detailed and extensive discussion relating to the Petitioner's eligibility under prong two of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second 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. 
8