dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 03, 2024 In Re: 33690735 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 qualified for a waiver of the labor certification and job offer requirements 
for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, 
the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in their analysis of the evidence and applied an 
inappropriate standard of proof. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 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 
• 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 Petitioner, a citizen and national of Brazil currently residing in the United States, seeks to open a 
dental clinic or clinics. The Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor will increase access to dental 
health care and address a shortage of qualified dentists. She further claims that her financial 
investment of $330,000 and projected revenue of $6.1 million over five years demonstrates the 
significant economic impact of her proposed endeavor. Lastly, the Petitioner claims that her dental 
clinic will engage in research designed to "integrate cutting-edge dental practices and technologies" 
in order to "position them as pivotal contributors in the evolution of global dental health practices." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional and that her proposed endeavor had substantial merit but that she had not established the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor, that she was well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that, on balance, it was in the best interest of the United States to grant the waiver of the 
job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. 
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. 
Id. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies, in part, on her 9 years of experience as a dentist in Brazil to establish 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of 
success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her 
proposed work. 
The Petitioner also reiterates the importance of dental health and the promotion of good dental hygiene. 
In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id at 889. We further indicated 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 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for 
instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
As explained by the Director, 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. Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a dental 
entrepreneur would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her clients and 
employees. While she claims her dental clinic would contribute to the field of dental research, she has 
not identified any specific area of research, the amount of time an resources spent on that research, or 
how it would impact the dental field more broadly. 
We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance due to the shortage of professionals. The Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage of dentists. Further, 
shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. 
The Petitioner does not offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her 
future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from 
the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Because the identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver. 
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3