dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 35036522 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a registered nurse who intends to operate a home health care business, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 
EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). 
The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner 
qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed the subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence 
have the potential to change the outcome). 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). 
We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
It is important to note that our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision, which is 
the July 2024 dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal and not the Director's November 2023 decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
In dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not 
satisfy the national importance element under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we explained that the evidence of record, 
including her business plan, letters of recommendation, and opinion letter from a professor, did not 
show that her proposed endeavor to establish and operate a home health care business stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her potential patients or clients, to impact the field or any other industries 
or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner generally disagrees with the Director's decision, contending that it 
"overlooked critical aspects of [the] endeavor, which directly addresses the national demand for home 
health care services, particularly in light of the aging population in the United States." In support of 
the motion to reopen, the Petitioner provides evidence previously submitted, as well as a new letter of 
support from her employer, a physician in Florida. Regarding the letter, like those previously 
submitted, it praises the Petitioner's knowledge and ability in the field of health care, which as 
explained in the Director's denial and in our appeal dismissal, are factors considered under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. At issue is whether 
the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor to establish and 
operate a home health care business in the United States, the first prong of the Matter of Dhanasar 
framework. Id., 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. This letter does not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further asserts her "proposed endeavor will significantly influence public health 
outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions, and lower overall healthcare costs" and that the endeavor will 
be "contributing directly to the national economy by creating jobs and reducing healthcare 
expenditures." In support of her assertions, the Petitioner improperly relies on Matter of New York 
StateDepartmentofTransportation (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), which 
was vacated by our precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar. 1 More importantly, and as discussed in 
our dismissal of the appeal, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these 
claims of her business' substantial economic benefits to the United States. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. 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 motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 While we acknowledge that the Petitioner also cites to "Matter of Poursina, 25 I&N Dec. 867 (BIA 2012)," stating that 
"the BIA recognized the national imp01iance of endeavors addressing public health needs, even if the impact was initially 
localized," we were unable to find this decision and the Petitioner did not provide a copy. We note, for example, that 25 
l&N Dec. 867 (BIA 2012) corresponds to Matter of Valenzuela which addresses individuals admitted to the United States 
in K-4 nonimmigrant status. As we are unable to locate the referenced decision, we will not address it further. 
2