dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 25, 2024 In Re: 31124992 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business owner, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then 
establish 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 Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director found the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
However, as the record does not otherwise establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue 
of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 2 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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. 
The Petitioner proposes to create a medical digital platform, which will implement "innovative 
technology systems" for health service providers and patients with the goal of making the healthcare 
system more easily accessible for patients. The platform will include features allowing the 
identification of nearby physicians, telemedicine options, in-person appointments for the performance 
of clinical tests, and patient feedback. The Petitioner states the software will provide transparency for 
both healthcare providers and patients, allowing them to see upfront costs for services and scanned 
insurance cards, as well as improve communication between the parties, allowing patients to confirm 
or cancel appointments. The platform will also include the patient's medical history and the 
physician's data, such as attendance rates and the number of patients served. Through her endeavor, 
the Petitioner states she will create better quality public care services and contribute to the U.S. 
economy, healthcare system, and overall quality of life. 
Based on the evidence presented, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial 
merit but not national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's analysis of Dhanasar 's first prong overall "contains instances of a misunderstanding 
and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error and reach the levels of abuse of discretion. "4 
We find the Petitioner's claims unpersuasive and agree with the Director's ultimate conclusion, as 
discussed below. 5 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues 
unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 T&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternate issues on appeal in removal proceedings where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for reliet). 
3 The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not meet Dhanasar ·s second or third prongs. 
4 The Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of the Director's decision to this appeal, but it does not relate to the Petitioner 
in this case. 
5 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The Petitioner first contends that the Director ignored "objective, documentary evidence," such as 
various articles and government reports submitted with the initial filing and the Petitioner's response 
to the request for evidence (RFE). With this evidence, the Petitioner claims she showed the national 
importance of her endeavor with documentation speaking to the inherent benefits of enhancing patient 
outcomes, reducing healthcare costs, and expanding access to quality healthcare services, particularly 
for disadvantaged communities. The Petitioner also contends that her initial filing and RFE response 
contained ample evidence that "clearly and unambiguously" spoke to her proposed endeavor's 
national importance and its prospective national impact from an economic and social welfare 
standpoint. She emphasizes that the articles "demonstrate an interest from the United States in 
harnessing the Petitioner's knowledge and expertise" and that her endeavor is "closely tied to the 
government's interest." 
In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead the focus is on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The articles and reports cited 
in the appeal provide only general background information on the healthcare industry and do not 
specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, including how it might impact 
these fields more broadly, such that it rises to the level of national importance. Merely working in an 
important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's claim that the Director abused her discretion in failing to "correctly and rightfully 
consider the viable, probative evidence" per Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) is 
also unavailing. The court in Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the 
evidence presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does it suggest 
that USCIS abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of 
evidence. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate 
findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary 
for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 
123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. 
US. Att'y. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 
(4th Cir. 1993). 
Here, the Director's statements, for example, that "there is no documentary evidence that supports the 
claim that the endeavor will impact the industry" or that "the record is not supported by independent 
and objective evidence demonstrating that the [P]etitioner's work has potential implications that are 
of national importance," indicates that the quality of the evidence overall lacked probative value in 
supporting the national importance of the endeavor. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 
(providing that "the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true). These statements alone do not show, as the Petitioner 
claims, that the Director ignored the evidence. 
Furthermore, the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though 
the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. The Director recognized the evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner in response to the RFE, including the Petitioner's business plan, updated 
cover letter and personal statement, and articles and reports indicating telehealth care is an important 
3 
industry. Based on the evidence of record though, the Director concluded, and we agree, that the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the endeavor's potential prospective impact to establish its 
national importance. 
For instance, the Petitioner makes several claims of economic benefits, however, they are too 
attenuated to sufficiently show the endeavor's "substantial positive economic effects." In her 
proposed endeavor statements, the Petitioner claims her endeavor will save the U.S. healthcare 
industry "billions of dollars each year by reducing manual processes through a secure, multi-payer 
platform, getting better patient outcomes, prompt emergency care, comprehensive management of 
chronic illnesses, making informed, data-driven decisions regarding treatment, improving healthcare 
access to disadvantaged communities through telehealth and health campaigns." The Petitioner also 
states her plan is "to initially help more than 21 million people in the state of Florida." Despite her 
claims, however, the Petitioner has provided little evidence to support these numbers. She has not 
explained how these projections were calculated or provided sufficient evidence showing their bases. 
We note that any basic business activity has the potential to positively impact its clients and 
community and, in tum, the economy and societal welfare; however, the Petitioner has not offered a 
sufficiently direct connection between her proposed endeavor and any demonstrable economic or 
societal welfare effects to establish her endeavor's national importance. 
Similarly, the Petitioner claims her platform will implement "innovative technology systems" and 
address "critical gaps in the U.S. healthcare system." However, she has not adequately explained, for 
example, what her "innovative technology" is or how it differs from, or is better than, software already 
available and in use in the United States. While the Petitioner's healthcare related software may be 
beneficial to her potential clients and users of the platform, the record does not adequately demonstrate 
that the endeavor has the potential to result in a broad impact to the healthcare industry such that would 
rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also stresses that her endeavor "to optimize advancements in technology for the U.S. 
healthcare system" aligns with broader national priorities for healthcare reform. She cites articles on 
subjects including the need to modernize the U.S. healthcare system to improve quality while reducing 
costs, the need for innovation and competition in healthcare, as well as the Biden-Harris 
Administration's investment to expand telehealth nationwide, improve healthcare in rural and other 
underserved communities, and develop a global health workforce plan. She also asserts that the 
Director's decision "presents contradictory assessments" of the evidence. Specifically, the Petitioner 
notes that the RFE indicates that evidence to establish national importance may include documents 
demonstrating that the endeavor "impacts a matter that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or is [the] subject of national initiatives." She also asserts that the Director 
"acknowledged that the Petitioner provided numerous government initiatives and regulations that 
illustrate the impact of the endeavor on a matter considered nationally important." The Petitioner 
contends, therefore, that this evidence "must account" for demonstrating national importance and that 
it is "contradictory and arbitrary" to conclude otherwise. 
We find this argument unpersuasive . While documents showing the endeavor impacts a matter that a 
government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives 
may indicate that an endeavor has national importance, merely showing that a petitioner plans to work 
in that industry is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of the proposed 
4 
endeavor. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 (stating that the first prong's focus is on "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"). The petitioner must still 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact in that area of national importance. 
Here, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner submitted articles and reports indicating telehealth 
care is an important industry. However, the Director properly concluded that the Petitioner did not 
adequately demonstrate how any impact resulting from her medical digital platform would have 
broader implications in the healthcare industry, such that it would rise to the level of national 
importance. The articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor, do not discuss 
the government's interest in the use of the Petitioner's digital platform, and overall do not help 
demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor on the healthcare industry. As the 
Director found, while the Petitioner's medical digital platform may be beneficial to her potential 
clients and their users, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the endeavor has the potential 
to result in a broader impact to the healthcare industry to show the national importance of the endeavor. 
We note that the Petitioner relies largely on articles and reports that do not discuss her specific 
endeavor to support her eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. However, general conclusory 
statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed 
economic or other impacts are insufficient. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Id. at 375. Because the Petitioner has not established through sufficient evidence in the record that 
her proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining issues concerning whether 
she has established eligibility for the EB-2 classification, as well as eligibility under the remaining two 
Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We, 
therefore, conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for, or otherwise merits, 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5