Date of Decision: June 09, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Dentistry
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dentist
Field: Prosthodontics and Implant Dentistry
Nationality: Brazil
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit:
The petitioner successfully demonstrated that his proposed U.S. employment has substantial merit, with potential economic benefits and advancements in the field of dentistry.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor in the United States at the time of filing and during the adjudication process.
National Importance:
Although the petitioner showed that his work has potential national implications, he did not provide enough specific evidence of how he would disseminate and implement his technique across the U.S. dental community.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner proposed to purchase an established dental practice in Texas and expand its operations using a specialized prosthodontic technique that he developed over the past decade. This technique incorporates behavioral sciences to improve patient outcomes, particularly for complex oral disorders. The petitioner had already published an article on this technique, which received significant attention from prominent U.S. dentists and was presented at a major dental conference.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The USCIS acknowledged the substantial merit of the petitioner’s endeavor, noting that his approach could provide economic benefits and advance the field of dentistry. The technique, which involves psychological preparation of patients and a comprehensive examination of oral and craniofacial tissues, was well-received within the dental community. However, the petitioner did not provide a clear plan for how he would continue to promote and spread this technique across the United States.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted various documents, including a business plan, a published article, and letters from dental professionals supporting the significance of his technique. These documents were recognized as demonstrating the merit of his proposed work but were not sufficient to establish that he was well positioned to lead the widespread adoption of his technique in the U.S.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor
The appeal did not adequately address the inconsistency between the petitioner’s proposed business expansion and his ability to promote his prosthodontic technique nationally. Additionally, the timing of the petitioner obtaining his U.S. dental license, which occurred after the filing of the petition, further weakened his case.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan:
The business plan detailed the petitioner’s strategy to acquire and expand a dental practice in Texas but lacked specifics on how he would propagate his technique nationwide.
Advisory Letter:
Letters from U.S. dental professionals supported the value of the petitioner’s technique but did not provide concrete evidence of national implementation plans.
Any other supporting documentation:
The petitioner’s supporting evidence did not convincingly establish his capacity to advance the endeavor on a national scale.
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor at the time of filing and throughout the adjudication process.
Reasoning:
The lack of specific plans for the nationwide dissemination of the petitioner’s technique and the delayed acquisition of a U.S. dental license were key reasons for the dismissal of the appeal.
