The Petitioner, an orthodontist/entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for the requested classification or that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-
, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Law
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree p. 2 followed by five years ofprogressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent ofa master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
Once eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification is established, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 ( AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance;
- The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Analysis
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework.
The Petitioner states that he has more than 17 years of experience as a dentist, with over IO years of experience owning and operating his own clinic. He states that his proposed endeavor is to open his own dental clinic to "work as an Orthodontist (with a special emphasis in the area of prosthodontics) in the United States." He states that his clinic will "primarily serve American communities that have limited access to dental healthcare, either because of an acute shortage of dentists ... or because of their socioeconomic backgrounds."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence ofhis education and experience, a professional plan and statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, recommendation and support letters, and an expert opinion letter. He also submitted industry reports and articles discussing the state of dental care in the United States, the benefits of entrepreneurship, and the important role of immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S. economy.
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes a business plan for his proposed endeavor, evidence of fonding, letters of interest, additional recommendation and support letters, and additional articles and industry reports.
The Petitioner's business plan states that his clinic will be established in Massachusetts and will later expand to "provide dental services throughout the United States by partnering with other dentists." The Petitioner will serve as managing director and dentist, providing multidisciplinary dental care. The plan anticipates that the company will employ 11 employees in its first five years. The plan forecasts that the company will have sales of over $1.5 million by its fifth year, with payroll expenses of $978,421 and tax expenses of$44,773.
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification.Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification The Director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in the field of dentistry. In analyzing whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, the Director specifically noted that the Petitioner's claimed full-time experience overlapped in years, including experience he claimed was gained in multiple locations in Brazil and in the United States during the same period. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that his self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers.No urgency shown
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director did not give due regard to evidence in the record and imposed a novel standard of proof. The Petitioner also asserts that he was "deprived of due process rights and a fair treatment." In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he merits a national interest waiver.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. As noted above, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and we agree. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Id. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 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. at 890.
Although the Petitioner submits articles and industry reports describing the importance of entrepreneurship on economic growth, many of these reports are not specific to the field of dentistry. 3 An article from The New Yorker, dated June 2018, and titled "Why the United States Needs More Immigrants," discusses the benefits of immigrants entering the workforce to replace the aging generation that is exiting the workforce through retirement. However, the report is six years old and analyzes the U.S. workforce generally. It does not provide any information about the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in the field of dentistry. Nor is the information discussed specific to Massachusetts, the location of the Petitioner's proposed business.
Additional reports discuss a shortage of dentists and dental care availability in the United States but are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or the location of his business.Proposed endeavor too vague As noted above, when determining national importance, we examine the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor, rather than focusing on the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889; see also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification."). Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process. Much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of entrepreneurship generally or a shortage of dentists, rather than his specific proposed endeavor. Even considering the articles, reports, and statistics collectively and in the totality of circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that his specific proposed endeavor has national importance.
The Petitioner also submits his business plan dated April 2023 to support the national importance of his proposed endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor's impact. Although the Petitioner states that his experience in dentistry, including in underserved communities, will contribute to the U.S. economy, he has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The projections of the Petitioner's company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record.Job creation or economic claims unsupported The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of dentistry.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients The record does not establish that his proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole.
The Petitioner also submits an expert opinion prepared by Dr. I Iof the Department of Dental Sciences, as well as recommendation letters from current and former employers praising the Petitioner's education, experience, past success, personal qualities, and the results he achieved. However, these qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, that the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
We acknowledge that the expert op1rnon includes an analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In her analysis, Dr. I briefly discusses the history ofdental care in Brazil and concludes that, "U.S. dental clinical institutions operating or planning to operate in Brazil would benefit from the expertise and skills of a dental surgeon such as [the Petitioner]." However, she does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global implications on dentistry, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or the positive economic effects.
Additionally, we note that the Petitioner states in his personal statement and business plan that he intends to provide orthodontist services (specifically prosthodontics) in the United States. He does not describe an intention to operate his U.S. businesses in Brazil, as the expert opinion discusses, or to provide services as a dental surgeon. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, USCTS is not required to accept it or may give it less weight. See Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988).
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence he previously submitted and asserts that the Director imposed a "novel standard" and did not consider the evidence objectively. The Petitioner does not identify the Director's standard or any erroneous applications oflaw. Although the Petitioner states that the Director did not give due regard to his resume, business plan, evidence of work in the field, letters ofrecommendation, and industry reports, each ofthese was discussed in the Director's decision. The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that he was deprived of "due process and fair treatment" because the Director "erroneously denied further analysis of [the second and third Dhanasar prongs] and reasoned that there is no meaningful purpose for this analysis."4 However, the Petitioner is incorrect. The Director provided a full analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under all three Dhanasar prongs in her decision. As noted above, in her analysis of whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor the Director noted inconsistencies in the Petitioner's claimed work experience, including experience he claimed was gained in multiple locations in Brazil and in the United States on overlapping dates.Inconsistencies in the record The Petitioner does not address this or resolve these inconsistencies on appeal. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal and professional qualities and achievements, and the importance of entrepreneurship. However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar prongs. 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.