dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Health Dentistry

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 0 7 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529- 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner, a city department of health and human services, seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as a senior public health dentist. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found 
that the beneficiary qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer 
would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a legal brief. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) . .. the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. /d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, aliens of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks classification as 
an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on May 14, 2013. An 
introductory statement submitted with the petition indicated: 
According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, tooth decay is the single 
most common chronic childhood disease. . 
. . [The beneficiary] created a 
revolutionary, three-prong concept to alleviate the financial, health, and economic 
costs of treating up to 25% of our country's children. This three-prong concept 
includes, 1) dental sealants for erupted molars; 2) fluoride varnish applications for all 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
teeth; and 3) health education for both parent and child upon assessing tooth decay 
risk. This novel approach is exemplified by a dental health program implemented by 
[the beneficiary]- J which began in the 
fall of 2008, is an initiative [by the petitioner] to drastically reduce dental costs by 
applying the three-prong approach. The program specifically targeted low-income 
second graders who are the most vulnerable to dental caries, more commonly known 
as cavities, because they are not fully mineralized and because the grooves in their 
teeth tend to retain food that bacteria use[] produce tooth-destroying acid. This 
groundbreaking concept ... clearly qualifies [the beneficiary] as an applicant for [the] 
National Interest Waiver. .. . 
[I]n . _ , approximately two thousand second graders participated 
in [the beneficiary's] research. . . 
. _ _ may eventually become part 
of the City of Houston's traditional health services .... [The beneficiary] also hopes 
to extend her three prong approach to 5 years-olds [sic] who are associated with the 
federally funded _ 
- better known as the program. 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner submitted background materials about 
The materials do not indicate that the field of public health dentistry as a whole considers 
combination of treatment and preventive education to be a "revolutionary" approach to the 
issue of pediatric oral hygiene as the petitioner claims. Also, all of the submitted materials date from 
2008 and 2009, and therefore, by themselves, they do not establish the extent, if any, to which the 
program continued after that time. (Letters submitted in support of the petition indicate that the 
program is ongoing.) The petitioner's materials indicate that each mission serves between 800 
and 1,000 patients, 
with three missions during the 2008-2009 school year. 
The petitioner stated: 
[The beneficiary's] underlying passion comes from over 15 years of providing dental 
care in developing countries and refugee camps .... 
As Project Manager for 
Redevelopment Project from 1991 to 1997 ... , [the beneficiary] increased the 
manpower in the dental healthcare program, developed preventative services, and 
influenced government health policies, which greatly improved preventative dental 
care for the entire country. 
The petitioner submitted no documentary evidence to support its assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's impact in Cambodia. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Furthermore, assuming the beneficiary had the effect claimed in Cambodia, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
the petitioner did not show that conditions in Cambodia are so similar to those in the United States 
that the beneficiary's success in the former country implies future success in the latter. 
The petitioner asserted: 
A labor certification is not applicable in [the beneficiary's] case as it does not take 
into consideration the experience needed to perform the duties of intrinsic merit. In a 
labor certification, an employer can only require the minimum requirements (20 
CFR § 656.17(i) ... ) for an offered position. [The beneficiary's] skills are far 
above the minimum. 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner asserted that a worker with "minimum requirements" cannot 
"perform the duties" of the position; but the petitioner did not explain how a worker incapable of 
performing the duties of the position is minimally qualified rather than underqualified or unqualified. 
The regulation cited above reads, in pertinent part: 
(1) The job requirements, as described, must represent the employer's actual 
minimum requirements for the job opportunity. 
(2) The employer must not have hired workers with less training or experience for 
jobs substantially comparable to that involved in the job opportunity. 
(3) If the alien beneficiary already is employed by the employer, in considering 
whether the job requirements represent the employer's actual minimums, DOL [the 
U.S. Department of Labor] will review the training and experience possessed by the 
alien beneficiary at the time of hiring by the employer, including as a contract 
employee. The employer can not require domestic worker applicants to possess 
training and/or experience beyond what the alien possessed at the time of hire unless: 
(i) The alien gained the experience while working for the employer, 
including as a contract employee, in a position not substantially comparable to 
the position for which certification is being sought, or 
(ii) The employer can demonstrate that it is no longer feasible to train a 
worker to qualify for the position. 
(4) In evaluating whether the alien beneficiary satisfies the employer's actual 
minimum requirements, DOL will not consider any education or training obtained by 
the alien beneficiary at the employer's expense unless the employer offers similar 
training to domestic worker applicants. 
The petitioner did not explain which of the above regulatory requirements precludes labor 
certification in the present case. The petitioner did not state what the DOL would recognize as the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
minimum qualifications for the position, or explain how a worker with those qualifications would be 
unable to perform the duties of that position. Furthermore, the petitioner's argument presumes, 
without evidence, that recruitment of United States workers would inevitably result in the hiring of a 
minimally qualified worker, rather than the best qualified worker out of the entire applicant pool. 
The heneficiarv's curriculum vitae indicates that she has written two published articles: " 
- . 
2009. A printout from the Google Scholar search engine shows that the 2006 article has earned 27 
citations, with five citations for the 2009 article. The abstract of the 2006 article describes a 
"retrospective study" of 1,102 young patients who visited the emergency department (ED) of Texas 
Children ' s Hospital over a four-year period, revealing "a substantial increase in ED visits and 
hospital admissions during the study period." 
The petitioner submitted ten letters with the initial filing of the petition. now 
executive director of was president of when the 
beneficiary worked for that organization in Southeast Asia. Mr. described the beneficiary's 
work for 
She not only provided dental care to refugees but also trained workers to become her 
assistants in the clinic .... [S]he initiated and developed dental health preventive 
programs in the schools in the camps as well as in 
[I]n Pakistan . . . , she established and directed first line dental care and training for 
Mghan refugees and also provided dental treatment to Pakistani villagers who 
otherwise had no access to dental care at all. ... When the government of Cambodia 
asked to help reestablish their years, I 
called on [the beneficiary], the best person for the job, to head up the rebuilding of the 
dental school and contribute to developing the dental health care system in the 
country. Her passion and commitment to the people of Cambodia and their dental 
needs make the dental program in Cambodia a huge success that is now recognized 
by other dental schools in the region and by the 
The record contains no documentary evidence to establish the extent or impact of the beneficiary's 
contributions described above. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec . at 165. 
Dr. 
.____ ..... 
is a professor at the 
where the beneficiary earned a master's degree. Dr. stated : 
The United States desperately needs well-trained and committed dentists in public 
health to combat a major workforce shortage that is detrimentally affecting the oral 
health of Americans. I believe that [the beneficiary] has the knowledge, skills, 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
experience, and commitment to help address this critical shortage by providing dental 
services to the most underserved populations in this country. 
The beneficiary, by herself, would not have a significant effect on the claimed shortage Dr. 
described. A local labor shortage does not warrant the national interest waiver, because the labor 
certification process takes the unavailability of local workers into account. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 218. 
Dr. stated that the beneficiary's 2006 article "contributed to the growing and important 
literature on inappropriate and costly use of emergency rooms that indicates underlying problems in 
accessing primary care," and that "has been very successful" and "has been shared and 
showcased in poster presentations in various meetings and conferences." 
Dr. state dental director and chief of the t 
. "came to know [the 
beneficiary] while she was a graduate student . 
. . at the 
' Dr. stated that the beneficiary "has been . . . running one of [the petitioner's] five safety 
net dental clinics." Dr. praised the beneficiary's work with and patients as examples 
of her dedication to Houston ' s underserved population , but did not state how the beneficiary's work 
has had a broader impact in the United States. 
After comQleting her master 's degree, the beneficiary trained in a residency in dental public health at 
the at Houston. Dr. 
a clinical professor and former department chair at the _ , stated: 
[The beneficiary] worked as part of the evidence-based dentistry (EBD) working 
group that I headed. The group investigated and documented evidence-based 
dentistry practices in the areas of health policy, health promotion, and prevention and 
management of oral diseases .... 
[The beneficiary] was one of the three researchers who worked with me in the EBD 
working group. She did the systematic reviews for prevention, diagnosis, and 
management of dental caries, water fluoridation, and health policies for injury 
prevention such as the use of mouth guards in contact sports .... The results of our 
research . . . were used in an oral health planning workshop in Houston in January 
2002 which was attended by dentists, other healthcare professionals, and stakeholders 
who have an interest in the promotion of oral health in the area. 
Dr. also asserted that had been successful locally, but he did not indicate or 
establish that the beneficiary ' s work has had a demonstrable impact outside of the Houston area. 
Dr. visiting professor at 
[the beneficiary] when she was working for the 
United Kingdom, "first met 
Cambodia ." An 
- - -----------··------·----------- -- ··-- --------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
unsigned copy of a 2007 letter from Dr. indicated that Dr. "was assisting the 
" and later "was [to] develop a 
Chair of the 
_ ' The beneficiary 's efforts in Cambodia 
included "fostering a good relationship between the American non-governmental organization she 
worked for, the leadership and the Ministry of Health," "contribut[ing to] planning for 
the dental workforce in the country," and "conceptualiz[ing] strategic planning meeting[s] for those 
involved in developing oral healthcare in Cambodia." Regarding the beneficiary 's work at 
Dr. letter indicated that the beneficiary's "findings have shown not only that 
her hypothesis was correct in that a lot of non-traumatic dental problems are being treated in hospital 
emergency rooms, but that this is an extremely expensive way of managing the dental problems of 
disadvantaged population groups." Dr. was a co-author of the beneficiary's 2006 article 
about the last identified issue. 
now executive director of was previously an 
associate professor at where the beneficiary took one of her classes. Ms. reviewed 
the beneficiary 's career and called her "a professional who is constantly seeking new avenues to 
improve the dental health of a given population." 
An unsigned letter attributed to Dr. , professor at contains this passage: 
[The beneficiary] came to me to seek methodological advice related to the design and 
conduct of her dental public health residency research project, which was concerned 
with the unmet dental care needs of pediatric patients who seek care for nontraumatic 
dental problems in emergency rooms. [The beneficiary] successfully developed and 
implemented the project and published the results in the nationally regarded 
The findings from [the beneficiary's] residency project have helped to shed light on 
the personal and institutional costs of unmet dental care needs of children, as well as 
the growing problem of emergency room overcrowding and costs in caring for the 
uninsured and others who do not have adequate access to primary and preventive 
health and dental care. 
Another unsigned letter is attributed to Dr. an assistant professor of 
pediatrics at , who was "completing a doctoral degree in Epidemiology 
at the '' in May 2007, and who worked in the Emergency 
Department of while the beneficiary was conducting her research there. 
Dr. is a co-author of the beneficiary's 2006 study on ED visits by pediatric patients for 
non-emergency dental issues. Dr. letter indicated that the findings from the beneficiary 's 
residency project "were so illuminating locally that in response, the of the 
Greater Houston Metropolitan Area made access to dental care a priority for the city." The letter 
described no impact beyond the local level except to state that the beneficiary's paper "contributed 
. - ···--------------- ---- ·-···------- ------ --- -- --------- --·----
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
to the growing national literature on the burden of non-urgent dental care on emergency 
departments." 
Dr. the petitioner's · assistant director of 
described the beneficiary's career history, including the program, and stated that the beneficiary 
"is actively training the next public health work force" by working with students from several 
universities in Houston and "train[ing] dental hygiene and dental assisting students" at .......__ 
_ . Dr. stated that she has been familiar with the beneficiary's work in 
Houston since 2001, but did not state what effect that work has had outside of the Houston area 
during that time. 
In a 2008 letter, Dr. state dental director for the 
described the work the beneficiary performed before her arrival in Texas. Dr. 
stated, for example, that the beneficiary "greatly influenced the development and 
implementation of (Cambodia's] ," but Dr. provided no 
supporting evidence and did not indicate how she had first-hand knowledge of this work. Regarding 
the beneficiary's more recent efforts, Dr. stated: "While her clinical work addresses the 
restorative care and the relief of suffering of young children, the preventive strategy she is leading is 
going to have an even greater impact on a much larger number of children." This assertion is an 
expectation of future impact, rather than evidence of past impact beyond the local level. 
The director issued a request for evidence on July 26, 2013. The director acknowledged key claims 
in the initial filing, but found that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's wider influence 
on her field. In response, the petitioner submitted letters from three university officials in Texas, a 
fourth letter from a alumnus, and background "information regarding the critical 
importance of dental sealants, particularly in low-income, school-aged children." The petitioner 's 
previous background information indicated that Houston already provided sealants to children before 
the beneficiary initiated PSS. 
Dr. _ professor at the 
asserted: "There is a national need for public health practitioners who are trained and committed to 
addressing the factors associated with disparities in oral health." Dr. described the 
program, now expanded to eight missions per year, each of which "aims to reach 1,000 at-risk 2"ct 
graders." Dr. concluded that the beneficiary "is a uniquely qualified public health dentist." 
Like the previously submitted letters, Dr. letter did not indicate that the beneficiary 's 
work has already influenced the field as a whole. Instead, Dr. asserted: "I know the impact 
of her work will greatly impact the nation's oral health given the time." 
Dr. associate professor at stated that the beneficiary 
"is clear[ly] ... committed to provide population-based oral health care and to serve underserved 
populations." Dr. described as "a paradigm shift in the delivery of population-based 
preventive interventions to the target population," and "an excellent model for local and state 
governments' health departments," but he did not claim that it is in use outside of some 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
neighborhoods in Houston. Instead, Dr. stated: "perhaps, the [petitioner] has not sufficiently 
promoted or marketed the uniqueness of this approach. [The beneficiary] and her team have 
focused on tweaking and expanding this program to reach a much larger number of children every 
year, and not promoting to others." Dr. stated: ' needs to be shared more openly .... 
I look forward to seeing the model, or facets of it, being carried out within other areas of the 
U.S.," but his opinion is not evidence that its wider impact is assured. 
Dr. project director for "a non-profit collaborative addressing 
' called an "innovative prevention program [that] fills a crucial 
national need addressing the dental and medical needs of underserved communities." Dr. stated: 
"From 2008-2010, approximately 5,000 children participated in " 
Dr. now a dentist in Connecticut, earned a master's degree in public 
health from discussed and asserted that the beneficiary's "innovative techniques are 
economically viable for a national application," and "ready for national duplication." Dr. 
assertions do not establish that the beneficiary's work on has already influenced the field as a 
whole on a national level. The NYSDOT national interest test requires evidence of existing 
influence, rather than claims that the possibility exists for future influence. Dr. states: "I 
professionally model her practice of prevention," but this is not evidence of wider influence, given 
Dr. ; own close connection to the beneficiary via 
It may be that represents an improvement over Houston 's prior handling of the dental health 
needs of students in certain high-risk populations, but that does not establish or imply that is, 
therefore, an improvement at the national level. The petitioner submitted a artial copy of 
a 2013 report by the The 
report included' ,"indicating that Texas earned a grade 
of "D" because only 25% of high-need schools have sealant programs, and the state did not meet the 
"Healthy People 2010 Sealant Goal." This data indicates that Texas continues to have a poor 
statewide record, even some years after the introduction of Other states ranked considerably 
higher, and the petitioner has not shown that would be an improvement on the programs already 
in place in those jurisdictions. 
The director denied the petition on October 25, 2013, stating that the petitioner had established the 
substantial intrinsic merit of the beneficiary's occupation, but had not shown that the benefit from 
her work will be national in scope, or that the beneficiary has a past history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. The director also found that 
"[t]he evidence of record does not explain the beneficiary's true intentions," because some materials 
refer to dental practice and others to "her intention to focus on public health service research." The 
director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of several highly complimentary letters, but 
concluded that "[n]o substantive evidence was submitted to the indicate the beneficiary would serve 
[the national interest] to a substantially greater degree as a Senior Public Health Dentist or a 
researcher, than other United States workers having the same minimal qualifications." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the record establishes that the beneficiary "is an individual with 
an advanced degree whose specialized area of employment is national in scope." The petitioner cites 
statistics showing that poor dental health is a national problem, but the petitioner has not shown how 
the duties of a public health dentist for a municipal government would produce benefits that are 
national in scope. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's "extensive work, testing, and research is national in 
scope." The beneficiary has published two articles since 2006, and made occasional conference 
presentations , but these works appear to be infrequent and incidental to her duties with the 
petitioning local government entity. 
The petitioner maintains that the beneficiary's "work ... should be adapted and multiplied on both 
state and federal levels to improve and equalize dental care for all Americans ," and that her "work 
and technique ... can and [are] being applied and duplicated throughout the country as a national 
model." The petitioner identifies no jurisdiction outside of Houston that has used the beneficiary's 
work as a model. Speculation that other jurisdictions might, one day, adopt or other of the 
beneficiary's innovations does not establish that the beneficiary's intended position with the City of 
Houston meets the national scope prong of the NYSDOT national interest test. 
The petitioner asserts that "this case can easily be distinguished from Matter of New York State Dept. 
of Transportation" because the beneficiary "has developed an innovative technique to address a crucial 
national interest of the deteriorating dental care of the minority children population." This assertion 
establishes a difference between the beneficiary in the present proceeding and the beneficiary in 
NYSDOT, but the NYSDOT decision addresses the issue of innovation. "[I]nnovation is not always 
sufficient to meet the national interest threshold . ... Whether the specific innovation serves the national 
interest must be decided on a case by case basis." Id. at 221 n.7. The unsupported claim that the 
beneficiary's work is "being applied and duplicated throughout the country as a national model" does 
not meet the petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner discusses the credentials of some of the individuals who wrote letters in support of the 
petition. It remains that all of these individuals have demonstrable ties to the beneficiary , and most 
of them are concentrated in Texas and in Houston in particular. As shown above, the letters 
discussed work that the beneficiary performed outside of the United States, and her more recent 
efforts that have been confined to Houston, under the auspices of an agency of the city government. 
Predictions, however sincerely believed, of the future nationwide impact of the beneficiary's work 
appear to be premature. While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it 
clearly must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the 
national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or 
she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). users cannot properly approve the petition at a future date after the beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Cornm'r 1971). Therefore, USCIS cannot approve the waiver now, on the expectation that future 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
developments will eventually justify the optimism of the beneficiary's colleagues. The petitioner's 
own evidence shows that Texas continues to perform poorly when ranking states' handling of 
pediatric dental health, even after the beneficiary has worked in Texas for several years. The evident 
lack of widespread progress, even at the state level, does not readily suggest that the beneficiary's 
efforts will imminently produce the national benefits foretold in the submitted letters. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that the beneficiary 's influence be national in 
scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a 
significant benefit to the field of endeavor." /d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a 
past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person qualified to engage in a 
profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on national 
interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest 
waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than on the merits of the 
individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver 
of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.