dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pediatric Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 11, 2024 In Re: 30663109 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dental director and pediatric dentist, seeks classification under the employment­
based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer 
requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job 
offers in this category - and thus related requirements for certifications from the U.S. Department of 
Labor (DOL)- if noncitizens demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker protections would be "in 
the national interest." Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
qualified for the requested EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an "advanced 
degree." But the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not merit a national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director improperly analyzed evidence and failed to 
provide "a clear and coherent decision." The Petitioner asserts that, contrary to the Director's findings, 
her proposed endeavor has "national importance;" she is "well positioned" to advance it; and, overall, 
a waiver would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she has not sufficiently established the claimed national importance of her 
proposed venture. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petitioners must demonstrate their qualifications 
for the EB-2 category, either as advance degree professionals or as noncitizens of"exceptional ability" 
in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect the jobs of U.S. workers, 
this category usually requires prospective employers to offer noncitizens jobs and to obtain DOL 
certifications to permanently employ the individuals in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the job offer/labor certification requirements by 
demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be in the national interest. Section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may warrant waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements by demonstrating 
that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Brazilian native and citizen, earned a dental surgeon degree 
and worked 
in the dentistry field in her home country for more than 16 years. 
In the United States, the Petitioner seeks to continue her work as a dental director and pediatric dentist 
at a community health center. The position involves creating dental treatment procedures for children, 
coordinating billing, training office staff, and developing and implementing office procedures and 
protocols. She states that she aims to improve U.S. health systems by offering innovative and 
beneficial solutions in her clinical practice and spreading knowledge about preventative oral care 
through presentations and lectures. 
B. EB-2 Eligibility 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 category as an advanced degree 
professional. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "advanced degree" to include "any United 
States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate"). 
Because we can resolve this appeal on another ground, we will reserve review of the Petitioner's 
qualifications for the EB-2 category. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); 
see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues 
on appeal where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for relief). 
C. Substantial Merit 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. A proposed undertaking may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a 
2 
significant economic impact" or relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human 
knowledge." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that her proposed venture could improve the health ofU.S. children, 
reduce healthcare costs and inequalities, increase access to oral care, and ease a shortage of pediatric 
dentists in the country. The record therefore demonstrates that the venture has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "An 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. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "An 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. 
The record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the claimed 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. Under Dhanasar, the record does not establish that 
her work would substantially affect the national economy or have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers. The Petitioner claims that she has and would continue to treat many children from 
economically depressed areas. But the record lacks sufficient, detailed evidence to support her claim. 
The Petitioner also has not demonstrated that her work would advance the pediatric dentistry field. 
She claims that she has introduced many innovations to the field. For example, to treat children who 
fear dentists, she states that she uses "new techniques focused on the psychological neo-conditioning 
of children, using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), especially Applied Behavior Analysis." She 
also states her development of community-outreach programs to teach children and parents the 
importance of oral health and disease prevention. But the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that her techniques and programs represent innovations or that they would 
advance the pediatric dentistry field on a national level. The record lacks sufficient evidence that her 
techniques and programs are new to the field, have national implications, or would expand to have 
national implications. 
Much of the Petitioner's evidence constitutes articles about the pediatric dentistry field, including: the 
importance of oral hygiene in children; lack of U.S. dental insurance coverage; and fear of dentists. 
As previously indicated, however, when considering national importance, USCIS must focus on a 
petitioner's particular proposed endeavor. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. ("The first 
prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the spec[fic endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake.") ( emphasis added). The articles about the pediatric dentistry field do 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would advance the field or 
substantially benefit the national economy. 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also submitted an 
expert opinion letter from a U.S. associate professor of dental medicine. The expert finds that the 
3 
Petitioner's endeavor has national significance because it would potentially "enhance oral health, yield 
notable economic advantages, and tackle healthcare accessibility issues in underserved regions." Like 
the Petitioner's other evidence, however, the expert does not focus on the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor. Rather, the expert mostly discusses the importance of the Petitioner's field and occupation. 
The letter therefore does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's particular endeavor would have national 
implications for the economy or the field. See Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988) (allowing the immigration service to reject or afford lesser evidentiary weight to 
expert testimony that conflicts with other information or "is in any way questionable"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's RFE and decision contain "contradictory, 
arbitrary and boilerplate statements." She states that the RFE provides "little to no discussion 
whatsoever" of her "voluminous evidence." She states: "It placed a high burden on the Petitioner to 
again argue her case's merits." 
The Petitioner also contends that the RFE's boilerplate language "strips [her] of the opportunity to 
address substantive inquiries into the merits of her case." She claims that, contrary to USCIS policy, 
the Director did not thoroughly review the record before issuing the RFE. See generally l USCIS 
Policy Manual E.(6)(F)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. She states that "the vague and generic 
language in the Denial decision indicates that the Service did not analyze the provided evidence but 
manifested an unjustified will to deny [her] case despite all the evidence." She suggests that, because 
the RFE sought additional evidence on all Dhanasar prongs, USCIS "was not thoroughly reviewing 
the evidence provided and, instead, arbitrarily dismissed the Petitioner's qualifications and proposed 
endeavor without proper consideration." 
A RFE must "specify the type of evidence required, and whether initial evidence or additional evidence 
is required, or the bases for the proposed denial sufficient to give the ... petitioner adequate notice and 
sufficient information to respond." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv). Before issuing RFEs, USCIS officers 
should"[ r ]eview all the evidence to determine if each of the essential elements [ of the benefit request] 
has been satisfied by the applicable standard of proof" 1 USCIS Policy Manual E.(6)(F)(l). 
Regarding national importance, the Director's RFE states: 
In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted several industry reports and articles 
[ and] several letters of support. 
The evidence provided does not support the petitioner's claim that her proposed 
endeavor in the field of dentistry has the potential to offer substantial economic benefit 
to [a] region of the United States or to the nation. The petitioner has not provided any 
objective documentary evidence to support tool made its calculations and how the 
system formulated its results. The petitioner may no doubt provide beneficial services 
to the community where she proposes to practice dentistry. However, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of her work as a dentist will 
broadly impact the field or health care at a level contemplated by Dhanasar. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
4 
USCIS cannot conclude that the prospective impact of a Dental Director/Dentist to 
employers has implications beyond the employer and any of its employees, or any 
individual or entity for which [ s ]he would provide h[ er] services and their employees, 
rising to the level of national importance. 
( emphasis added). The RFE also asks the Petitioner to submit additional evidence showing that her 
proposed endeavor: 
• Has national or even global implications within a particular field; 
• Has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area; 
• Will broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment; and 
• Impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is 
the subject of national initiatives. 
We acknowledge that the highlighted phrase in the Director's RFE makes no sense. But, on balance, 
the RFE sufficiently notifies the Petitioner that: her support letters and industry reports and articles 
are insufficient to demonstrate her specific endeavor's national importance; her evidence does not 
establish that her particular work would have national implications for the economy or her field; and 
she has not shown her work's implications beyond her employer and its employees and patients. The 
Petitioner does not provide sufficient examples of evidence that the Director purportedly disregarded 
before the RFE' s issuance. Also, the RFE specifies the type of evidence required to demonstrate 
national importance. We therefore disagree with the Petitioner and find that the Director did not issue 
the RFE without reviewing the record. 
A denial decision must "explain in writing the specific reasons for denial." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
"Written decisions should use plain language that the requestor can understand." 1 USCIS Policy 
Manual E.(9)(B). 
The national importance section of the Director's 16-page decision is not a model of clarity. For 
example, one sentence appears to omit language about national implications, stating: 'The totality of 
the evidence fails to demonstrate that the petitioner's proposed endeavor has 'potential prospective 
impact."' Nevertheless, the decision discusses the Petitioner's evidence, including: her claims; the 
expert opinion letter; and the industry reports and articles. The decision also sufficiently explains the 
specific reasons for the denial. The decision states: "Without sufficient documentary evidence of its 
broader impact, the petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 'national importance' element." 
Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's contentions, the decision does not indicate the Director's disregard 
of evidence or "an unjustified will to deny [her] case." 
The Petitioner claims that her work contributes to multiple U.S. objectives, including: 
• "[F]ortifying the national health agenda by reducing the prevalence of dental diseases among 
children;" 
• "[D]riving economic advantages for U.S.-based dental clinics by introducing innovative 
treatment modalities and efficient operational techniques;" 
5 
• "[E]nhancing the global standing of U.S. pediatric dentistry through groundbreaking research 
and collaborative ventures;" 
• "[I]nstituting and refining state-of-the-art pediatric dental solutions, ensuring the highest 
standards of patient safety and treatment efficacy;" and 
• "[U]plifting the professional ecosystem by mentoring budding dental practitioners and 
advocating for optimized work conditions." 
We agree that these objectives have substantial merit. But, again, in considering national importance, 
we must focus on the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Evidence shows that her work would contribute 
to these national objectives. But that is not enough to demonstrate national importance. Rather, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that her particular work - by itself and uncombined with the work of 
other U.S. dental professionals - would have national implications. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(5)(D)(l) ("In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the 
beneficiary will be doing.") 
For example, in Dhanasar, we found that a proposal to teach science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) courses at a U.S. university had substantial merit but lacked national importance. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. We concluded that "the record does not indicate by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the 
field of STEM education more broadly." Id. Similarly, the Petitioner's proposed work as a dental 
professional in the United States has substantial merit. But, like the petitioner in Dhanasar, the 
Petitioner here has not demonstrated that her particular work - as opposed to her field or occupation 
- would have national implications. 
E. The Remaining Waiver Issues 
Our determination regarding the proposed endeavor's national importance resolves this appeal. Thus, 
as with the Petitioner's EB-2 eligibility, we decline to reach and hereby reserve decisions on her 
appellate arguments regarding her positioning to advance her proposed venture and a waiver's 
purported benefits to the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL­
A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has national importance. She 
therefore does not qualify for a national interest waiver, and we will affirm the petition's denial for 
lack of a job offer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6