dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 17, 2024 In Re: 31507851 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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. 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 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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to "perform as a Dentist and provide [his] specialized services in Dentistry through innovation in the 
U.S. [d]ue to [his] extensive professional experience in dental surgery with an emphasis on 
endodontics (root canal treatment)." The Petitioner asserted that he would facilitate "clinical care in 
less time and visits, thus lowering costs." He further indicated that he would "spread more 
conservative dentistry through training courses and guided training, thus, making the system more 
accessible." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends that his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
discussed the importance of dentistry, the matter here is not whether dentistry is nationally important. 
Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of 
providing his services as a dentist concentrating on endodontics in New Jersey. Likewise, his citation 
of articles and statistics in his RFE response covers a wide range of topics, such as the prevalence of 
periodontal disease and how dentistry can improve self-esteem, rather than establishing the national 
importance of his particular professional services or business. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
The Petitioner stresses his "significant past achievements" and recognition by his "peers, employers, 
and other experts." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. Similarly, the Petitioner also argues the 
submission of his letters discussed the impact of his work in the field. Although the letters discuss the 
Petitioner's particular skills and the writers' experiences in working with him, the letters do not show 
the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to these references who either studied 
with or employed him. As noted above, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and 
accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Id. 
2 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his dental services and training courses would largely influence 
the field and rise to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation 
how his endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective customers or clients, to impact the field 
or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how his dentistry or training services have significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. While 
the Petitioner continues to make general claims regarding the need for dentists, and the need for 
specialized trainings, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how his particular 
proposed endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. Without such 
evidence, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from his services or position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful 
2purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3