dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 03, 2025 In Re: 37021633 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a biomedical systems technician, seeks second preference immigrant classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 
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 Petitioner established 
he was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated 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. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner stated that he will establish and operate I a company specialized in 
providing a wide range of clinical engineering and biomedical systems and equipment services to 
hospitals, clinics, and laboratories. The Petitioner also stated that the company will offer upkeep, 
repair, and calibration services for medical gear and lease quality medical tools. Further, the Petitioner 
explained that the company will train and educate healthcare personnel to ensure the safe and efficient 
use of medical equipment. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted"). 
The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims 
under the first prong of Dhanasar, including his personal statements and business plans, his job 
experience and skills, and the claimed economic impact of his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director oversimplified the proposed endeavor to analyze 
the national importance of the endeavor, and the Director erred by not evaluating the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs, citing to Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994). But in Matter ofM-P- the 
Board oflmmigration Appeals found they were unable to meaningfully review an immigration judge's 
motion denial when no explanation was provided for the decision. Here, the Director issued a decision 
that clearly articulated the basis for denial was the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which is a requirement for establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Although we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not directly discuss every piece of evidence 
she considers as salient to establishing her eligibility for a national interest waiver, he has not 
established how those omitted documents demonstrated eligibility. Further, the Director discussed 
several pieces of evidence in the decision and determined the evidence was insufficient to establish 
the proposed endeavor's national importance, but the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Director's 
failure to discuss every document in detail changed the outcome of the case. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his numerous personal accomplishments should be considered as 
an indicator of national interest in the proposed endeavor. We recognize the Petitioner's educational 
background and experience in the field, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success are 
considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not explain how his past 
accomplishments establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the 
importance of biomedical systems technician services and entrepreneurship. The relevant question is 
not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus 
on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Further, "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. Also,"[ a ]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
However, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient details, and the record 
does not adequately show through supporting documentation, how the Petitioner's business and 
services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not provide evidence or arguments to overcome the Director's concern outlined in the Decision. 
The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits 
to the 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. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
2 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to 
make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
3