dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Audiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 06, 2024 InRe : 31032751 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an audiologist, 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 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 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 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). If, however, the profession customarily requires a doctoral degree, a 
noncitizen must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
Once 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: 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar framework and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with Director's 
determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to address hearing loss in the United 
States, has substantial merit. However, upon de novo review, we also conclude that the record does 
not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner intends to work as an audiologist in the United States to "provid[ e her] expertise in 
audiology and perfor[m] services related to [her] field in the United States." In the initial filing, the 
Petitioner submitted a professional plan and statement indicating her plans to "work with hospitals, 
clinics, schools, and other institutions located in the U[ nited] S [ tat es] in need of these specialized 
services to understand the demands and treatment protocols of people facing these issues, producing 
quality diagnostics and treatment plans to improve their overall health and meet patients' necessities 
fully." Noting her previous "work[] with electrophysiological assessment of hearing through 
Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential, which enables the diagnosis of deafness in newborns," the 
Petitioner also stated, "with proper investment and research opportunities, I will be able to achieve 
further success and contribute to America by advancing scientific discoveries and breakthroughs in 
this industry, while also providing citizens with protocols that will aid them in hearing loss." While 
the professional plan does not clarify what "proper investment and research opportunities" the 
Petitioner planned to pursue, she indicated she planned "to write academic works" and translate her 
prior research to English "as a way of sharing this knowledge with professionals in this industry and 
advancing scientific findings." In support, the Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter, letters 
of recommendations from past patients as well as other professionals in the field, and articles and 
industry reports discussing audiologists, speech pathologists, hearing aid specialists, the importance 
of hearing health and newborn and infant hearing screening, demographics of users and nonusers of 
hearing aids, and the economic costs ofunaddressed hearing loss. 2 
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 unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that her "primary 
focus will be helping the American clinics, hospitals, and health professionals to address the deafness 
early diagnosis in children." In an updated and revised professional plan, the Petitioner outlined the 
wide array of services her endeavor would encompass, which include: diagnostic services, treatment 
protocols, research and development, educational workshops and training, community outreach, 
electrophysiological assessment, early intervention and advocacy, cross-cultural knowledge transfer, 
academic contributions, assessment of associated health issues,3 collaboration with relevant 
organizations, and promotion of hearing health awareness. The Petitioner asserted her endeavor will 
have national implications in the field of audiology, because she could "explore innovative approaches 
to early detection and diagnosis of hearing loss in newborns and children, [which] could involve 
investigating new screening protocols, developing more sensitive diagnostic tools, or studying the 
effectiveness of early intervention programs." Notably, the professional plan did not provide detailed 
information relating to the specific research the Petitioner intended to pursue, nor did she indicate the 
amount of time she anticipated spending on the services outlined. The Petitioner also submitted a 
second expert opinion letter in support of her endeavor, which focused primarily on the audiology 
field and the impact of audiologists' work with patients. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor because the broader implications of her endeavor would not sufficiently extend beyond her 
prospective employers and/ or patients in a manner that would rise to level of national importance. On 
appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director did not properly evaluate the record and 
impermissibly focused on whether the Petitioner's endeavor would result in broader implications to 
the audiology field, without considering the prospective impact of her endeavor to societal welfare 
and its implications on a matter that a United States government entity has determined is of national 
importance. 
Upon de novo review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, in 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to primarily rely on the importance of the audiology field, rather 
than establishing the broader implications of her specific endeavor, stating that her endeavor will 
"bolster societal welfare in the United States by virtue of its intrinsic nature." The Petitioner also 
asserts that, because her endeavor is "aligned with several U[ nited] S [ tates] significant initiatives such 
as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Health 
3 The Petitioner states that she will offer comprehensive patient care and "addres[s] health conditions associated with 
hearing loss, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cognitive decline," but does not elaborate on how she plans to 
address these medical conditions. 
3 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and many other public health initiatives," this is 
sufficient to establish its national importance. While the stated alignment of her work with federal 
initiatives may speak to the significance of the field, it does not establish the specific endeavor's 
potential prospective impact. Likewise, the Petitioner argues that "hearing loss can have a profound 
impact on an individual's quality of life," and impact a child's educational and developmental 
outcomes, and therefore, the Petitioner's endeavor and work as an audiologist detecting hearing loss 
will aid in addressing these societal issues. The Petitioner also asserts that, given the details provided 
in her professional plan "it is only logical to infer," the proposed endeavor "will have potential 
prospective impact, achieving a similar level of national importance such as the one held by the field 
itself" However, in Dhanasar we stated that, in determining national importance, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As such, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national 
importance of her specific endeavor. Here the record does not support such a conclusion. 
While we recognize that research in the field of audiology may result in broader implications to the 
field, the Petitioner has not consistently and clearly explained her plans to participate in research, nor 
does the record contain sufficient supporting evidence or information identifying how the Petitioner 
will allocate her time between direct audiology services and research. Such information is necessary 
to evaluate whether any research activities she may participate in would lead to broader implications 
commensurate with national importance. For example, on appeal the Petitioner states that she can 
drive advancements in biomedical engineering, leading to improving design, functionality and 
performance of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other assistant devices, but she does not provide 
further explanation, nor does she explain how any potential future research would be utilized to 
improve designs to properly evaluate its impact. Speculation about research that the Petitioner might 
undertake in the future does not sufficiently describe a specific proposed endeavor to allow for analysis 
and assessment under the three-prong Dhanasar framework, and generalized conclusory statements 
that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
Here, neither of the Petitioner's professional plans provide specific details relating to her prospective 
research plans or the "scientific discoveries and breakthroughs" she intends to research. Rather, they 
repeatedly indicate her intention to work as an audiologist in both plans.4 Therefore, based on the 
Petitioner's statements in the record, it appears the primary focus of her endeavor is to provide direct 
services as an audiologist rather than conduct and publish her research. And, while the Petitioner's 
statements reflect her intention to provide critical services to prospective patients, and assist hospitals, 
clinics, schools, and other institutions to ensure early detection of hearing loss in her patients, she has 
not provided information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her direct audiologist 
services rises to the level of national importance to directly improve societal welfare. Establishing 
that the existence of hearing loss services and addressing hearing loss in individuals of all ages will 
4 While not relevant to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, we also note that in response to the Director's RFE, the 
Petitioner submitted job solicitations from Linkedln to establish she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
Notably, the potential opportunities involved providing direct audiology services to patients, rather than research, which 
also supports the conclusion that the Petitioner's primary endeavor will be to provide services as an audiologist, rather 
than research. 
4 
have a positive impact on the societal well-being is not enough to establish that the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor itself will result in an impact to societal welfare rising to the level of national importance. 
This is evident by the Petitioner's acknowledgement on appeal that her "presence in the United States, 
providing early diagnosis intervention and support, can definitely improve the quality of life of these 
specific individuals." [ emphasis added] 
Likewise, the letters of support from the Petitioner's past patients, colleagues, and mentors do not 
provide insight into the prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The letters 
recognize the Petitioner as a "very competent," professional who executes her "tasks with great 
dedication and exemplary performance, [providing] empathy [to] her patients, and great knowledge 
about how to carry out exams in [an] outpatient clinic," but they do not detail how the Petitioner's 
experience would impact the audiology field beyond her immediate patients, co-workers, and 
employers. The Petitioner's direct services in the audiology field could greatly improve the lives of 
her prospective clients, but the Petitioner has not established how these individualized benefits rise to 
the level of national importance. 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 too, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands 
to sufficiently extend beyond her potential patients to impact the audiology field or societal welfare 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The expert opinion letters are similarly not persuasive in establishing the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. They do not discuss broader implications that would be directly 
attributable to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, instead relying solely on the importance of the 
audiology field generally. For example, in one opinion, the expert repeatedly discusses the prospective 
impact of audiologists, and ultimately concludes that the United States "would greatly benefit from 
the expertise and skills of an experience audiologist such as [the Petitioner]," without elaborating on 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The letters also focus significantly on her past work; however, a 
petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are considerations under Dhanasar' s 
second prong, which does not evaluate the prospective impact of an endeavor, but instead "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. While we may use expert opinion 
letters submitted by the Petitioner as advisory testimony, we are responsible for making the final 
determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r. 1988). The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) 
(discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and 
the overall probative value). 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that, pursuant to guidance pertammg to individuals with 
advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, the record 
establishes the national importance of her endeavor because it will contribute to narrowing the STEM 
talent gap and develop scientific research in audiology. The Petitioner references two of our non­
precedent cases involving endeavors which were "directly related to an area of STEM" to support her 
endeavor's national importance. However, the decisions referenced by the Petitioner were not published 
as a precedent and therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, 
5 
and applicable law and policy. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the facts in her case are 
analogous to those in the non-precedent decisions. Notably, in both of those decisions we explained 
that a Petitioner could not rely on an industry or profession to establish national importance, but rather 
the record must establish the prospective impact of their specific endeavor. In contrast to the record 
before us, the petitioners in the cited cases provided sufficient details relating to the prospective impact 
of their specific endeavor, including its direct implications to the field. Here, the Petitioner has not 
similarly demonstrated that her proposed endeavor offers broader implications in the field. The Petitioner 
also does not elaborate on how her employment as an audiologist will meaningfully address the STEM 
talent gap. A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual 
audiologist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the Petitioner's 
claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any audiologist, but Congress did not provide 
a blanket exemption for this occupation with respect to the job offer and labor certification 
requirement. 5 
Furthermore, beyond discussing the economic impact of the field of audiology field in general, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that her intended work as an audiologist has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to her future work ( as opposed to the general economic impact of the industry), the record 
does not show that benefits to a regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the reasons stated above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The U.S. Department of Labor addresses shortages of qualified workers through the labor certification process. A 
determination as to whether the benefits inherent in the labor certification process are outweighed by other favorable factors 
relates to the balancing analysis set forth under the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
6