dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2025 In Re: 35683502 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a health care professional entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 pet1t10n, concluding that the Petitioner 
demonstrated her proposed endeavor had substantial merit but did not establish its national 
importance. We concurred with the Director and dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner asserts our decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy and indicated she 
would provide "pertinent precedent decisions, statutory or regulatory provisions, or statements of 
USCIS or Department of Homeland Security policy that demonstrate the incorrect application of the 
law or policy in [her] case." However, on motion, the Petitioner does not specify which law or policy 
she claims was abrogated. 
Rather, the Petitioner reiterates that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit as she intends to start 
a business providing "health services directly to seniors, train nurses, and other health care 
professionals to provide home care services, thereby creating jobs in underutilized business areas, and 
helping to address the nursing shortage in U.S. public health." However, as stated above, we 
previously concurred with the Director that the Petitioner has already established the substantial merit 
of her proposed endeavor. We also note that we acknowledge the importance of the health services 
field, including the provisions of services and training of professionals. However, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field in which the individual 
will work. Instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). In Dhanasar, we 
determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance 
because they would not impact the field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner proposes to 
provide health services and train health care professionals. However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated these activities would sufficiently extend beyond her company and clientele to impact 
the field of health care services at a level commensurate with national importance. In addition, the 
alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render a proposed endeavor nationally 
important under the Dhanasar framework. Rather, such shortages of qualified workers are directly 
addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner contends we failed to consider "her broader implications and [her] qualifications for 
the national interest waiver." The Petitioner asserts she submitted a business plan demonstrating the 
benefits of her proposed endeavor to the state of Montana and surrounding region, and the U.S., 
through the generation of jobs and training of professionals for elder care. The Petitioner claims her 
proposed endeavor aspires to create 75 direct jobs in five years and has the potential to create 25 
thousand direct and indirect jobs in the future. Initially, we note that the Petitioner's qualifications 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which considers whether a petitioner is well­
positioned to advance a proposed endeavor and "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Id. at 890. Further, while the Petitioner submitted a business plan for her proposed 
business, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting evidence corroborating these assertions 
and figures. The Petitioner also did not establish the significance of this employment data to 
demonstrate the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to generate substantial positive economic 
effects in the region where her business would operate or nationally, at a level commensurate with 
national importance. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 
Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2