dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aesthetic Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 5, 2024 In Re: 33276646 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85 , 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In his business plan, the Petitioner states his proposed endeavor is to develop and serve as the chief 
executive officer of an aesthetician clinic providing 
the following procedures: botulinum toxin, a wrinkle treatment procedure, facial and neck dermal 
fillers injection, lips dermal fillers injection, PDQ threads, and radiesse collagen injectables. The plan 
states the corporation will be headquartered in Florida with two businesses located in Georgia and 
California and will focus on providing aesthetician services to women aged 40 to 64. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he holds the equivalent of a United States bachelor's degree in 
business administration and over five years of progressive experience in business. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. We agree. The only issue on appeal is whether he qualifies for and merits a 
waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit of 
his proposed endeavor. We agree. 
2. National Importance 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has 
other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, 
or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor would have substantial positive 
economic effects, broadly enhance societal welfare, have national or even global implications, or 
would otherwise impact his field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director applied a narrow interpretation of national importance. 
He claims his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers and will have other 
positive economic effects through its creation of direct and indirect jobs, and contribution to job 
2 
growth and economic stimulation in Florida, Georgia and California. The Petitioner's business plan 
states the company will be located in underutilized business zones in Florida, Georgia and California. 
The business plan projects the company will hire 14 "full-time and part-time" employees the first year, 
increasing to 45 in the fifth year. The plan states it will generate 90 indirect jobs, but this is based on 
an employment multiplier for "other personal services," not aesthetician clinics specifically. The plan 
forecasts the company will have a net income of -$81,927 the first year increasing to $1,058,514 in 
the fifth year. The business plan states the aesthetician industry generates revenue of $2.9 billion and 
is expected to employ 164,848 people over five years to 2028. The business plan does not indicate 
that the projected employment of 14 to 45 people full- and part-time and the generation of 90 indirect 
jobs represents a significant potential to employ U.S. workers in an industry that employs 164,848 
people. The plan also does not demonstrate that the company would have other substantial positive 
economic effects in an industry that generates nearly $3 billion. See id. at 890 ( discussing significant 
potential to employ United States workers and other substantial positive economic effects as indicative 
of national importance). 
The Petitioner also claims the Director overlooked the "broader societal impact of improving 
healthcare access and outcomes through specialized aesthetician services." The Petitioner asserts his 
proposed endeavor will enhance the overall well-being and self-confidence of individuals, thereby 
contributing to societal welfare. The Petitioner further asserts that his proposed endeavor aligns with 
federal initiatives aimed at improving healthcare access and fostering economic development in 
historically underutilized business zones. The Petitioner submitted articles on the medical aesthetics 
market, future of aesthetics injectables, rising demand for cosmetic procedures and dermatologic 
surgery, medical aesthetics attracting investors, 2022 state of the medical spa industry, and immigrant 
entrepreneurs. These articles address the importance of the medical aesthetics industry and immigrant 
entrepreneurs. However, our assessment of national importance does not focus on the importance of 
issues affecting a field or our nation in general, rather it "focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, none of the articles mention the Petitioner 
or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor. See id. (explaining we consider 
the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact when assessing national importance). 
Consequently, the articles do not establish that his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his 
company's individual clients to impact the medical aesthetics industry or societal welfare more 
broadly. See id. (explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner claims the Director did not fully consider his recommendation letters and evidence of 
his work in the field. The Petitioner submitted letters from employers and colleagues who praise his 
skills and accomplishments, but do not address his proposed endeavor. For example, D-O-V-T- 2 
praises the Petitioner's work at and states he "will make a 
wonderful and successful addition to any company." H-S- describes the Petitioner's successful 
restructuring ofl Iand expresses confidence that he will "serve the U.S. national interest." S­
M-W- praises the Petitioner's work at and states he "will make considerable 
contributions to the U.S." 1-P- recounts his successful partnership with the Petitioner and states the 
Petitioner will make "significant contributions to the development of the United States." While they 
attest to his past achievements and express confidence in his ability to contribute to the United States, 
2 We use initials to protect the privacy of the referenced individuals. 
3 
they do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or any impact it would have in the 
medical aesthetics industry. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from F-J-Q-, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice at 
expressing his opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 
F-J-Q- states the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance because aesthetic clinics 
contribute "to the nation's overall well-being, self-confidence, and quality of life" and contribute to 
the economy by creating employment opportunities for skilled professionals. F-J-Q- references 
employment and revenue projections from the Petitioner's business plan but does not specify how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would extend beyond his clinics' individual clients to impact societal 
welfare and the nation's economy in a manner commensurate with national importance. Cf id. at 892 
(stating Dhanasar submitted probative expert letters describing the importance of his specific research 
as it relates to U.S. strategic interests). 
In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
company's clients to impact his field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor and he 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, he has not demonstrated that he 
is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4