dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 33153757 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a health care professional, 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established 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 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. 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. 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; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
According to the Petitioner's statement provided with the initial filing, she intends to "seek 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit, nursing" and proposes to undertake all her "efforts 
and knowledge on behalf of U.S. citizens," administering all health care from her "training and 
professional experience." The Petitioner referenced her professional experience in Brazil as a nurse 
and "teacher, assisting in the training of new professionals" and indicated her "commitment is to 
nursing, to health as a whole." She stated that her efforts "will bring significant benefits" to the United 
States, the well-being of Americans, and the economy. The Petitioner also submitted recommendation 
letters and industry articles and reports in support of her eligibility. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted additional documentation, to include a business plan, an expert opinion letter discussing the 
Petitioner's professional skills and prospective contributions to the United States, a letter from a U.S. 
Senator's office acknowledging the Petitioner's pending national waiver petition and asking USCIS 
to give her petition their full and fair consideration, information from the U.S. Small Business 
Administration showing the geographical location of qualifying HUB (historically underutilized 
business) zone areas in Montana, and letters from two prospective customers expressing interest in 
obtaining services provided by the Petitioner's future company. The Petitioner indicated that her 
company will be located in Montana and "will simultaneously operate training, homecare, and 
partnership divisions." The company will train health professionals and caregivers interested in 
learning how to properly care for their patients or elderly family members; offer homecare services 
for older adults, "initially providing care alone and gradually hiring professionals to assist" her clients; 
and "work as a franchise network of professionals" who will be able to offer the same services as the 
homecare division using the company's "digital structure (online platform, scheduling system, 
communication with the client, etc.)" 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate the importance of the Petitioner's 
2 
endeavor on a national scale. The Director noted that while the submitted evidence emphasized the 
importance of health care professionals and the Petitioner's professional experience in this field, the 
record did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would extend 
beyond her future company and customers and have national implications. In addition, the Director 
found that the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner 
did not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her proposed endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director failed to consider all the submitted evidence, such 
as salary generation and financial projections included in her business plan, calculations regarding 
potential job creation, and a letter from a U.S. Senator. She argues that considering the problems 
facing U.S. society and the health care system, her proposed endeavor presents "a solution to a matter 
of national importance" since her endeavor "aims to provide health care services to older adults to 
improve their well-being." The Petitioner refers to her proposed company's stated mission to increase 
the quality of life for older adults by making affordable homecare available to as many families as 
possible and contends that the business plan presents "a detailed step-by-step explanation of how" her 
project will impact the field and generate positive economic impacts. She asserts that the submitted 
studies, projections, and data prove that her proposed endeavor meets the criteria of national 
importance, given the broader positive implications it will have on the American economy and society 
over the next few decades. 
Upon review, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate whether she had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she meets the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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, Id. at 
889. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's 
work. The Petitioner submitted articles, studies, and reports addressing the importance of health care 
professionals, providing caregiver training, and making quality care services available for older adults, 
and the impact of these activities on the U.S. economy and society. She also provided recommendation 
letters and an expert opinion letter, describing her professional experience and accomplishments. 
However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar's first prong. Additionally, the articles, reports, and letters failed to establish that the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. Regarding the letter 
from the U.S. Senator referenced by the Petitioner, while we acknowledge the letter asks USCIS to 
give the instant petition full and fair consideration, it does not demonstrate that the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance. 
We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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 
3 
to have national importance." Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance 
of providing quality homecare to older adults, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her company's operations would provide substantial 
economic benefits to Montana, the region, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance, nor did she demonstrate that her company's activities would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. Though the Petitioner's 
business plan projects that her company will have 77 employees during the first five years, the record 
does not sufficiently show how the company will pay salaries and other operational expenses. The 
business plan indicates that the cumulative operating costs will be $9.2 million, approximately 54% 
of net revenue, and "most of this amount will be invested in employee payments and payroll-related 
taxes" which total nearly $8.5 million. The cost of sales, a total of $1.5 million, "will be for 
commission payments and referral bonuses to attract new customers." The business plan states that 
although the Petitioner plans "to invest $6,000 in the company's start-up cash," the business model 
will allow the Petitioner "to start the business with an investment. Until the first employee (a licensed 
nurse assistant) is hired, the [Petitioner's] only fixed cost will be fuel moving to clients' residences 
and renting an office" for a total of less than $500 a month. "With the income obtained from the sales 
of the first courses and homecare services, the [Petitioner] will make the necessary investments" to 
advance her business plan. 
Upon review, the business plan lacks sufficient evidence to show adequate investment funds, either 
from the Petitioner or other entities. Further, while the record contains two letters from individuals 
indicating interest in taking a course offered by the future company, the submitted documentation 
lacks evidence of contractual commitments from individuals or organizations to work with the 
proposed company or obtain the prospective services. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that her company has significant potential to reach the stated economic impact objectives, including 
in the local HUB Zones; employ U.S. workers; or otherwise offer substantial positive economic 
effects. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of her 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) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4