dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 20, 2024 In Re: 30276003 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner 
demonstrated her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not 
establish that 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. 
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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, under section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and the record supports that determination. 2 The remaining 
issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. In denying the petition, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor, that she is well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and 
therefore is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. While we do not discuss 
every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner established that she completed a university degree in dental surgery and a postgraduate 
specialization in oral health promotion and prevention in her native country of Brazil. The record 
reflects that she has approximately 12 years of experience as a practicing odontologist and dental 
surgeon. 
In a professional plan submitted at the time of filing, the Petitioner stated she will continue using her 
"abilities as a dental surgeon to help meet the demand and ameliorate the shortage of dental health 
professionals in the country, provide highly skilled services to esteemed dental practices, provide 
educational lectures to empower other professionals in the field and improve the oral and overall health 
of U.S. citizens." She indicated that she would provide specialized oral care to patients of all ages, 
particularly in the areas of clinical care, dental surgery, and community education. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that her proposed 
endeavor is to offer her experience in oral surgery, general practice, pediatric dentistry, restorative 
dentistry, periodontics, and endodontics. She elaborated on the specific clinical procedures she would 
perform in each of these areas. The Petitioner also emphasized her intent to provide community 
education as well as training for other dentists and healthcare professionals, and stated she intends to 
"work in various areas of the healthcare industry, and perform roles in my own office, a national 
network of dental clinics, among others." 
2 Because the Director concluded the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, they 
did not reach a determination on her alternate claim that she is eligible for classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 
2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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 Director determined that the Petitioner had established her proposed endeavor's substantial merit, 
but not its national importance. Specifically, the Director concluded the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her undertaking stands to have broader implications in the field, has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or has the potential for other substantial positive economic effects. 
In her initial statement in support of the appeal, the Petitioner contested the Director's decision, 
asserting that the previously submitted evidence "certainly underscores the pivotal national 
implications" of her endeavor and establishes her eligibility for a national interest waiver. Specifically, 
the Petitioner stated that the services she will provide are "positioned to usher in transformative 
changes with expansive national and global implications in the Health sector" which will "bolster the 
economy directly and indirectly but also significantly enhance social welfare." 
In her subsequent brief, the Petitioner does not further address the Director's decision. Rather, she 
states that the previously submitted evidence "may not have adequately showcased the full range of 
my expertise, skills and initiatives." She submits additional evidence, including a new "endeavor 
statement," stating that her proposed endeavor is to implement an "Innovative Oral Rehabilitation 
Program" that "aims to alter the oral health scene in the United States fundamentally." While she 
describes this project and its intended outcomes in the materials submitted in support of the appeal, 
the new information differs significantly from the endeavor she described previously. 3 As such, we 
cannot conclude that she simply seeks to clarify the information she provided in her previous 
professional plans. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been 
filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter 
ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). Therefore, in evaluating whether the Petitioner met 
her burden to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor, we will base our review on 
the evidence that was in the record before the Director. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. In support of her claim that she can satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, the Petitioner cited articles in major media and other publications that address 
the lack of affordable dental care and dental insurance in the United States, nationwide and regional 
labor shortages in the dental health profession, inequalities in the availability of dental care across 
3 For example, the new endeavor statement indicates the Petitioner's work in the United States will focus on advancing the 
use of "overdentures with double connectors" used in the treatment of edentulism. She emphasizes that this "enhanced 
overdenture procedure ... presents an innovative method to dental rehabilitation." Finally, she expresses that her 
"particular area of interest is utilizing double connectors to their full potential," noting that, by doing so, she would be 
"advancing dental science and establishing new benchmarks for prosthodontic brilliance" and would "spearhead a 
revolution in oral health care." 
3 
different demographic populations, and serious health outcomes that can be linked to a lack of 
adequate dental care. 
This evidence provides support for the Petitioner's claim that her proposed work has substantial merit. 
However, in evaluating 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 "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further 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. Finally, we will consider evidence that a proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly 
enhance societal welfare, and whether it would impact a matter that is the subject of national 
government initiatives. 
The Petitioner has made general claims regarding the potential positive economic effects of her 
endeavor. Some of these claims emphasize the economic importance of the dental healthcare industry. 
For example, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner emphasized that the dental services market 
generated $136.4 billion in 2021 and accounted for more than two million jobs nationwide. She also 
cited statistics estimating that the direct and indirect economic impact of a single dental office exceeds 
$1. 7 million. While the revenue generated by the dental healthcare industry may be important to the 
U.S. economy, she must still demonstrate that the potential positive effects of her specific endeavor 
will be "substantial." 
The Petitioner further asserts that her work will have "ripple effects on the economy" by positively 
impacting the employment prospects of patients, reducing health care costs and productivity losses 
stemming from poor oral health, stimulating the local economy, increasing tax revenues, maximizing 
productivity in dental and U.S. healthcare practices, generating jobs, and expanding the qualified 
workforce in her field. The record also contains broad statements that the Petitioner's endeavor 
"creates the opportunity to raise the standard of living in the United States and the world" and will be 
a "key factor in creating a healthy economy." However, she has not demonstrated how her proposed 
endeavor to work as a dentist has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or stated that she 
will work in an economically depressed area. In fact, the record does not contain information or 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's 
future work beyond providing revenue and employment statistics for the Petitioner's industry as a 
whole. Absent information related to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, the record does not show that 
the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner does 
not offer an evidentiary basis for her assertion that her endeavor would potentially "raise the standard 
of living" throughout the United States. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner established that her proposed work involving oral 
health would impact an area that is the subject of national government initiatives. The record contains 
references to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Call to Action to Promote Oral Health. 
The submitted information about this and other government initiatives help show the substantial merit 
4 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. However, the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and may 
accept a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in 
and of itself: to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor. The Petitioner must still 
demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her proposed work and how it impacts those national 
initiatives. 
Further, while the Petitioner generally states that improved oral health can improve the quality of life 
for individuals, the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that her specific 
proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly enhance societal welfare, rather than the welfare of the 
individual patients she treats. The record supports a determination that oral health is important to the 
overall health of the population; however, it does not establish that the work of one dentist would have 
sufficiently broad impacts on the oral health and general well-being of the larger population. 
The record also contains statistics citing an increasing demand for dental health professionals in the 
United States and a shortage of qualified individuals to meet this demand. However, this shortage is 
likewise insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to 
practice as a dentist in the United States. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render 
the work of an individual dentist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several 
of the Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any dental practice, but 
Congress did not provide a blanket exemption for dentists with respect to the job offer and labor 
certification requirement. 4 Foreign dentists are typically subject to this requirement and therefore the 
intrinsic benefits of operating a dental practice are not presumptive grounds for waiving that 
requirement. Further, the Petitioner has not shown that her employment as a dentist would have a 
significant impact on any talent shortage in the field. 
The Petitioner also indicates that her work will advance her field, noting that she is qualified to provide 
training and instruction to other dental professionals and will do so through activities such as lectures 
and conferences. 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. While the Petitioner's plan to guide other dentistry professionals has substantial merit, she has 
not demonstrated that any instructional activities she may undertake would offer benefits that extend 
beyond her colleagues and trainees. Here, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish what the broader implications of her work would be or that 
her work would extend beyond her practice and its patients to impact or advance the dental healthcare 
field in which she intends to operate. The Petitioner's claim that she is "positioned to usher in 
transformative changes with expansive national and global implications in the Health sector" is not 
adequately supported by the record. 
The record includes letters of support from the Petitioner's industry colleagues attesting to her 
technical capabilities, experience, and commitment to providing excellent care to her patients. The 
Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. 
4 The U.S. Depa11ment of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process. A 
determination as to whether the benefits inherent in the labor certification process are outweighed by other favorable factors 
relates to the balancing analysis set forth under the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
5 
at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The submitted recommendation letters, while highly 
complimentary of the Petitioner's professional skills and qualifications, do not offer insight into the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor to practice dentistry in the United States. 
Finally, we agree with the Director's determination that the submitted expert opinion letters from two 
university professors are not persuasive in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. The authors significantly focus on the importance of oral health, the size of the 
dental health services market, the growing demand for qualified health professionals, the talent 
shortage in the field, and the Beneficiary's prior experience and qualifications to work in the industry. 
While they indicate that the United States would benefit from the Petitioner's expertise and skills as a 
dentist, they do not sufficiently address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, its prospective 
substantial economic impact, or any broader implications of the Petitioner's work in the field. 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letters lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner's evidence shows how her proposed endeavor stands to positively impact her 
patients and her future employer, it does not demonstrate how the endeavor will have a potential 
prospective impact consistent with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that her proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve her appellate arguments concerning her eligibility under the remaining prongs of 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6