dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25676250 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 6, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See 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 Petitioner did not 
resolve the discrepancy in the record as to her proposed endeavor and, without a sufficiently defined 
endeavor, the Petitioner did not meet any of the three prongs required to establish eligibility under the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 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. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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 USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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 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. 
The Director did not make a finding in the decision as to the threshold question of the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, however the Director stated in a request for 
evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner qualifies for the visa classification as an advanced degree 
professional. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner described her proposed endeavor as "working as a Medical Scientist 
in the Dental field." She defined a medical scientist as someone who "conduct[s] research dealing 
with understanding human diseases and improving overall human health" and who "engage[ s] in 
clinical investigation, research and developments .... " The Petitioner did not sufficiently describe the 
prospective research in the dental field that she intends to conduct, and she did not include evidence 
of prior or ongoing original research. The initial filing also included a tentative agreement between 
the Petitioner and a licensed dentist in the United States to establish a dental practice together. 
The Director issued an RFE noting the discrepancy between the endeavor of working as a medical 
scientist and that of operating a dental clinic and requesting additional evidence regarding the proposed 
endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a business plan for the establishment of a dental clinic 
in the United States. The brief in support of the RFE response characterizes the Petitioner as an 
entrepreneur seeking to open a dental clinic. The Petitioner did not address how operating a dental 
clinic relates to her stated endeavor of working as a medical scientist. 
The Director issued a second RFE, again requesting the Petitioner clarify the conflicting information 
in the record regarding the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submitted a statement in 
support of her "petition as a Medical Scientist in Dentistry in the Dental Field" in which she claims 
that she intends to establish a dental health firm in the United States. The brief in support of the second 
RFE response characterizes the Petitioner as a "Medical Scientist in Dentistry" but states that she is 
seeking to establish a dental clinic. Again, the Petitioner did not explain how working as a medical 
scientist as she defines it relates to her stated intention of operating a dental clinic. 
Although the basis for the denial was this inconsistency in the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner does 
not provide clarification of her proposed endeavor on appeal. Instead, the Petitioner claims the 
Director improperly imposed novel and substantive evidentiary requirements that are not in the 
regulations. However, she does not identify what these improper requirements are. The Petitioner 
also makes general assertions that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof or give due 
regard to the evidence in the record. However, she does not support these assertions with specificity 
as to the record. 
As discussed by the Director, the Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to whether the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Moreover, the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The purpose of an RFE is 
to elicit information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of 
2 
the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (b)(8), (b)(l2). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform with USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant, 
material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather 
than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the original evidence in the record. See id. at 
176. 
The information provided by the Petitioner in the response to the Director's two RFEs did not clarify 
or provide more specificity as to the proposed endeavor of working as a medical scientist. Rather, the 
Petitioner continues to describe her proposed endeavor as working as a medical scientist while 
primarily providing evidence of her intention to open a dental practice, without reconciling this 
conflicting information. 
A petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that [she] proposes to undertake." See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On the one hand, if the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as 
a medical scientist, she has not provided sufficient details regarding this endeavor, such as identifying 
the specific research in which she intends to engage. Without sufficient detail, we cannot accurately 
analyze the proposed endeavor to determine if it has substantial merit or national importance under 
the first prong. Nor has she sufficiently explained how the evidence of her planned dental practice 
relates to this endeavor. On the other hand, if the Petitioner seeks to change her proposed endeavor 
from working as a medical scientist to operating a dental clinic, this presents a material change to the 
basis for her request for a national interest waiver. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. A 
petition may not be approved in that instance. Id. The Petitioner has not resolved the discrepancies 
in the record regarding her proposed endeavor. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the noncitizen is well-positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar framework. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner was afforded two opportunities before the 
Director's decision to clarify her endeavor, but she did not do so. The Petitioner additionally did not 
clarify her proposed endeavor on appeal. Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent 
information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot sufficiently determine what the proposed 
endeavor actually is, or accurately analyze the endeavor. Therefore, we conclude that she meets 
neither the first nor second prong, and that she has not established, on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. Id. 
Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified her proposed endeavor, further analysis of her 
eligibility under any of the prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose, and we 
conclude she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3