Date of Decision: December 7, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Dentistry and Entrepreneurship
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dentist and Entrepreneur
Field: Dentistry and Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Merit: The proposed endeavor of providing dental services, including through a mobile unit aimed at underserved rural populations, was recognized as having substantial merit due to its focus on healthcare.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed dental services would have a broader impact beyond his immediate patients and local communities, failing to meet the national importance required by the first Dhanasar prong.
- Well-Positioned to Advance the Endeavor: Although the Petitioner has qualifications and experience in dentistry, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor to a level of national importance.
- On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process: This analysis was reserved, as the first prong was not satisfied.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed to establish a dental company that would provide various dental services, including through a mobile unit aimed at improving access to oral healthcare for underserved rural populations in Florida and potentially other regions.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed because, although the proposed dental services have merit, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the endeavor would have broader implications for the fields of healthcare or dentistry on a national scale. The assertions of economic impact and job creation were deemed speculative and not sufficiently substantiated by evidence.
On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of the Labor Certification process:
This prong was not analyzed in detail due to the failure to meet the first prong regarding national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner submitted business plans, an opinion letter from an associate professor, and various articles and reports. However, these were insufficient to establish that his proposed work would have the required level of impact on a national scale, especially since much of the evidence focused on general benefits of dental care rather than the specific impact of the Petitioner’s endeavor.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s arguments regarding the broader economic impact and societal benefits of his proposed endeavor were not supported by concrete evidence that would demonstrate a national-level impact.
Supporting Documentation
Business Plans:
The business plans outlined the Petitioner’s strategy for providing dental services but lacked sufficient evidence to support claims of a broader national impact.
Opinion Letter:
The opinion letter emphasized the Petitioner’s qualifications and the potential importance of his work but did not provide specific evidence to support the claim of national importance.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor as a dentist and entrepreneur would have national importance or broader implications in the field of healthcare or dentistry. The evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States on a national level.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
