dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 11, 2023 In Re: 28233196 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advance degree professional, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that a waiver of the 
required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would not be in the national interest. Additionally, 
the Director determined that the petition could not be approved because of the "marriage-fraud bar." 
See section 204(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 154(c). 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. 
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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. National Interest Waiver 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The 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. 
As a preliminary matter, on appeal the Petitioner contends it was an "abuse of discretion" for the 
Director to deny the petition determining that he was ineligible for a national interest waiver - without 
first issuing a notice of intent to deny (NOID) or a request for evidence (RFE) to address the dispositive 
factors in the record regarding this aspect of his immigration benefit request. He notes that while the 
Director issued a NOID discussing "sham marriage issues" involving his prior marriage, "the supposed 
deficiencies on the 1-140 petition" were not addressed therein. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8), however, permits the Director to deny a petition for failure to establish eligibility 
without having to request evidence regarding the ground or grounds of ineligibility identified by the 
Director. Further, even if the Director had erred as a procedural matter, which he did not, it is not 
clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself: which provided the 
Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the record and establish that he merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. Therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply 
to afford the Petitioner another opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar's first prong, the Petitioner indicates he "hold[s] the 
position of Qualify Assurance Officer with the Federal Police Referral Hospital in I 
Ethiopia," and asserts that he "views the U.S. as the country where he can most effectively and 
productively employ his expertise in quality assurance and improvement in health systems and laboratory 
services.... " His endeavor appears to span multiple fields of interest, including the "management of 
laboratory information system; accreditation; data digitalization; laboratory science; establishment of 
early infant diagnosis and HIV load testing services; technical proficiency in molecular laboratory, 
hematology, clinical chemistry, blood bank, parasitology and, microbiology .... " 
The Director concluded in the denial that the Beneficiary's prospective work within a wide variety of 
fields associated with healthcare industries has substantial merit and national importance. However, 
we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner has established the substantial merit and 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The first prong in Dhanasar, which requires a showing 
of both substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the substantial merit and the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the 
first prong and that he is well-positioned to advance it under the second prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
The petitioner describes his specific prospective endeavor, as follows: 
I am eager to continue my work in the United States with a hospital, non-affiliated 
laboratory corporation or other organization that will allow me the opportunity to continue 
2 
I 
to grow my own personal ambitions while serving the U.S. population to a high degree. I 
believe that my expertise and experience would be valuable to the medical community 
and the populations it serves, particularly in expanding health care services to populations 
in need and ensuring the highest-quality laboratory services are available to all members 
of the United States of America. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the socioeconomic importance of highly functioning healthcare networks in 
the United States, and cites to articles, such as an article entitled, Health and the Economy: A Vital 
Relationship, for the proposition "there is a direct connection between public health expenditures and the 
economic success ofthe U.S. workforce, as a healthy population is essential for participation in the [global 
market]." He asserts that "bringing in skilled professionals with extensive experience" such as himself, 
"would enhance any efforts to protect the domestic and international interests of the United States while 
encouraging its continued participation in critical health and human services programs." 
Although the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to continue w orking in the healthcare 
industries in the United States, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate 
the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 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. Similarly , the 
record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
impact U.S. interests or the healthcare industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. In addition, he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. 
For example, the Petitioner puts forth vague assertions that he has "the ability to positively impact the 
public health of U.S . [citizens] through the extension of healthcare services to vulnerable and 
underserved populations , and the execution of routine and emergency medical screenings to ensure 
the safety of the population during health care crises.... " But the Petitioner did not submit plans or 
offer explanations sufficient to address how he would provide healthcare services to persons residing 
in the United States in order to illustrate that the prospective impact of his healthcare-related activities 
would rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points to his letters of support which discuss his knowledge , skills, and 
work experience , but these letters do not sufficiently explain the national importance of his specific 
endeavor under the Dhanasar 's first prong . For instance, the letter from A-D-, discusses aspects of 
the Petitioner 's work abroad as a quality assurance professional , noting that he "led the implementation 
of the quality management system" for his current employer. A-D- asserts that the Petitioner "is an 
exceptional professional, possesses an abundance of critical skills necessary for success in the fields 
of laboratory , science and quality assurance , and is a dedicated , thoughtful , and wonderful person," 
and contends "the U.S. would greatly benefit from his talents and abilities." Likewise , S-K- favorably 
examines the Petitioner 's healthcare career in his letter, and maintains that the Petitioner "is a bright, 
talented , and well-rounded laboratory scientist and I am sure he will continue to excel in this field 
wherever he goes." 
3 
While A-D-, S-K- and the authors of other letters in the record provide general narrative about the 
Petitioner's professional skills and abilities, they do not sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how 
the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the United States. The submission of reference letters 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of 
those letters to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att)· 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.e. 1990). We acknowledge that the letter writers hold the Petitioner in 
high regard but conclude the letters in the record do not provide sufficient information regarding the 
specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in or adequately detail the national importance of 
his proposed work under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
In summary, absent probative supporting evidence to establish how the Petitioner intends to pursue 
the healthcare-related activities in his proposed endeavor, he has not met his burden to establish what 
his spec[fic proposed endeavor will actually entail. The record does not establish how he will 
positively impact the health of the U.S. population, or that through his work he will significantly 
impact his field(s) of interest, or the U.S. healthcare industries more broadly. Without more, the 
Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the 
United States will have substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove 
by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. 
Accordingly, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful 
purpose. For the foregoing reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
B. Marriage Fraud Finding 
users cannot approve a visa petition for a noncitizen who has attempted or conspired to enter into a 
marriage "for the purpose of evading the immigration laws." Section 204( c) of the Act. Even iflegally 
valid where it occurred, a marriage "entered into for the primary purpose of circumventing the 
immigration laws" permanently bars approval of a visa petition. Matter ofP. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. 598, 
601 (BIA 2019) ( citations omitted). 
To determine the existence of a fraudulent or sham marriage, adjudicators must determine whether the 
parties "intended to establish a life together at the time they were married." Id. Officers must examine 
the parties' conduct before and after the marriage to ascertain their intent, but "only to the extent that 
it bears upon their subjective state of mind at the time they were married." Id. "Substantial and 
probative evidence" must support a marriage-fraud finding. 8 e.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l)(ii). Thus, to 
invoke the marriage-fraud bar, the record must establish that a marriage was "more than probably" 
fraudulent. Matter of P. Singh, 27 I&N Dec. at 607. This standard of proof is higher than a 
preponderance of the evidence but lower than clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 607 n. 7. 
4 
The Director determined in denying the petition that the record contains substantial and probative 
evidence that the Petitioner's prior marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading immigration 
laws. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether section 204( c) of the Act is 
applicable here. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required 
to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first and second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5