dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Digital Mental Health

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2024 In Re: 34886034 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive, 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 that that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, the Petitioner is well positioned 
to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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 a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
According to the Petitioner, her business, I I will be "a key player in the digital mental 
health segment ... with significant implications for mental health awareness and treatment" and offer 
substantial positive economic effects. The online application will provide individuals with "effective 
strategies for depression, anxiety, various mental health disorders, chronic stress, and improve quality of 
life and general well-being." Although the record establishes the endeavor is of substantial merit, it is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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. 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. To evaluate 
whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of their work. In Dhanasar we determined 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding 
that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner's plans similarly lack a nationally important impact on the mental health field. The 
Petitioner has not adequately established how her business would have a national impact on the mental 
health care field beyond the individual clients it would serve. The record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate national importance either. 2 In support of prong one, the Petitioner provided a series of 
articles and reports. While these articles and reports3 provide useful background information, they are 
not sufficient to establish the national importance of the endeavor as they do not address the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the mental health 
field in a way that implicates national importance. 
The remaining items in the record submitted in support of the application include the Petitioner's 
resume, verification of her past work experience, training certificates, letters ofrecommendation, and 
evidence of past work product. This evidence also does not adequately establish national importance 
as concerns the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's 
potential impact in the mental health field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for 
the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. For example, although the letters ofrecommendation attest 
to the Petitioner's skills or detail specific past job performance, they do not stipulate how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor will contribute to the mental health field on a nationally important level. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr.I a professor of psychology at
I As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc. , 19 I&N Dec. 791 , 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nonetheless, we will 
reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it 
is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion is of little probative value as 
Dr.I I evaluation of national importance focuses on the importance of and demand for mental 
healthcare services in the United States. Additionally, she details the economic importance of the field 
generally. The letter's focus is misplaced as is not the importance of the field that determines an 
endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level 
commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. From the evidence 
provided, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national impact on 
the mental healthcare field. 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We observe that one of the articles was published after the filing of the petition. A p etitioner must meet all of the 
eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
3 
national importance. Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not 
adequately support its projections of job and revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of eight 
employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $157,000 in year one to $477,012 in year 
five. She also projected generating $31,688 in net profit in year one, increasing to $88,146 in year 
five. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify 
how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the business 
plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence 
demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is made based 
on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In 
evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value 
of the business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner 's initial brief in support 
of the petition contends that her business will have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers and 
other substantial positive economic effects." Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to 
support these statements. The record does not illustrate how creating eight jobs and generating the net 
profit as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level 
of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor 
rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under 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 ofL-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). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5