Date of Decision: September 22, 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: Dentistry
- Nationality: Not Specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner, a dentist, sought classification under the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and requested a national interest waiver. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviewed and dismissed the appeal.
Key Points from the Decision
- Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner initially proposed to “advance his career as a Dentist” in the U.S. by using his extensive experience to enhance dentistry services. After receiving a Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner expanded his endeavor to include establishing his own dental clinic in Florida. The petitioner claimed that his clinic would have a “national-level” impact by addressing the deficit in dental services, contributing to public health, creating jobs, and increasing tax revenues.
- National Importance: The Director concluded that while the petitioner’s proposed endeavor had substantial merit, it did not meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework. The AAO agreed with the Director, finding that the petitioner’s business plan did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that his clinic would have a significant national impact. The business plan projected modest growth, with staffing remaining at nine employees by the fifth year and a net profit of $83,155. The AAO determined that these projections were not substantial enough to demonstrate national importance.
- Supporting Evidence: The petitioner submitted letters from dental surgeons in Brazil and an expert opinion letter from a U.S. dental professor, supporting his qualifications and proposed endeavor. However, the AAO found that these letters did not provide persuasive evidence of the national impact of the petitioner’s work. Additionally, the petitioner cited a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report highlighting the importance of oral health, but the AAO emphasized that working in an important field does not automatically establish the national importance of an individual’s specific endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor had national importance. As a result, he did not qualify for a national interest waiver.
