dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 06, 2024 In Re: 31283587 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dental surgeon and prosthodontist , seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) 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 immigrant 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 he had not 
established 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 pursuant to 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (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 unpublish ed 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner's endeavor is to work as a dental surgeon and prosthodontist. In his professional 
statement, the Petitioner described his endeavor as follows: 
I fully intend to advance in my professional role as a Dental Surgeon Specialist in 
Prosthodontics by offering my rare expertise in the field to patients and clinics who 
need prostheses, implants, dental surgeries, and related issues. My refined academic 
and practical skills allow me to offer innovative solutions to dental problems that are 
constantly patient-sensitive. I also intend to offer my desired skill to the dental market 
in prosthetic technology, as a way of promoting the best solution to the patient. 
Additionally, by advancing in the development of expertise in the dentistry field, I will 
improve America' welfare and well-being by providing my know-how to patients in 
Florida's community and to the United States. 
The Director concluded that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but not national importance. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor, but he did not show, on balance, any national interest factors that would outweigh the 
benefits inherent in the labor certification process. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
Based on the government and industry reports on record that discuss the importance of dental health 
and the growing dental market, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's endeavor in the field 
of dental surgeries and prostheses has substantial merit. However, the Director pointed out that the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor, rather than the field or profession, is the focus when evaluating national 
importance in the context of a national interest waiver. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the endeavor would not result in broad 
implications to impact the field or have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, particularly in 
an economically depressed area. Id. at 889-90. The Director highlighted the lack of objective and 
corroborating evidence to support the claims of national importance made in the Petitioner's 
statements and letters. The Director further considered the expert opinion but determined that it merely 
reiterated the Petitioner's claims about a shortage in dental professionals and the need to reach 
underserved population with dental health issues and did not meaningfully discuss the specifics of the 
2 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such endeavor will directly contribute to diminishing the 
dentist shortage in the United States. The Director also evaluated recommendation letters that praised 
the Petitioner's track record in dentistry in Brazil as well as his knowledge of "a software for planning 
and 3D milling machines for making dentures" called CAD/CAM technology (Computer-Aided 
Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing). However, the Director found that the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that his knowledge of such technology rises to the level of national 
importance as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or arguments to overcome deficiencies 
noted by the Director or identify any errors on the part of the Director. Instead, the Petitioner submits 
with the appeal the same professional statement and refers to the previously submitted evidence in his 
brief The Petitioner broadly claims that he "provided comprehensive evidence" and "extensive 
documentation" to establish national importance of his endeavor. The Petitioner also asserts that his 
endeavor "will have an effect that extends beyond the patients he will care for" and "potentially have 
an impact on the proper and intended operation of the entire healthcare system." However, the 
Petitioner still has not provided independent and corroborating evidence to support his generalized 
claims of the endeavor's broad impact on the field or substantial economic effects. The Petitioner 
must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that his proposed work is of 
national importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and he is not eligible 
for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Therefore, further discussion of the second or 
third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(noting that "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 of L-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. 
3