dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 26, 2023 In Re: 26964319 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a medical services provider, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 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 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. 
If 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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar , 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver 
if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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) . 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 Petitioner endeavors to become an entrepreneur in order to farther the use of cannabidiol, or CBD, 
in the field of healthcare. The Petitioner intends to use her experience as a doctor in Colombia and 
her employment experience in the United States to develop a business through which she will offer 
consultancy services related to the use of CBD for therapeutic purposes. The Petitioner initially stated 
that she "will contribute to the U.S. Healthcare System and Patient care through training American 
healthcare personnel in therapeutic CBD application, and management of resources in emergency 
situations such as hurricanes and pandemics." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE) wherein the Director expressed concerns related to the 
legality of CBD as it would relate to the purported merit of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence to clarify that the use of CBD and its extraction from hemp is not illegal in the United States. 
The Director subsequently determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
However, the Director concluded that the record did not establish that the endeavor is of national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which she asserts that the evidence of record 
establishes her eligibility for a national interest waiver and that the Director did not analyze each piece 
of evidence. Discussing the Director's conclusion that the evidence did not demonstrate the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner 
states the following: 
Much like in Buletini, 3 the Request and Denial clearly did not contemplate or discuss 
the totality of the evidence submitted for proving the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. As such, USCIS' determination that the Petitioner did 
not meet the requirements of this prong by a preponderance of the evidence is flawed 
amounting to an abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicator. As the AAO may 
assess, ample evidence was provided that clearly and unambiguously speaks to the 
national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and the prospective national 
impact it holds for the nation from a social welfare standpoint. 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 See Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (stating that failure to consider all of the relevant evidence 
submitted by a plaintiff constitutes an abuse of discretion). 
2 
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. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided the following in a personal statement ( quoted as 
written): 
As a doctor. .. I share important information on alternative therapies for conditions such 
as anxiety, depression, post traumatic stress, among others, based on CBD and 
educating the general population on health related issues .... .I plan to use my 
networking and interactions with Medical Associates to enhance research on cannabis 
or cannabinoids for other conditions in [their] early stages (Alzheimers, Epilepsy, 
Parkinsons, PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, cancer, etc.) .... With my personal experience 
and applying first-hand dealing with catastrophic situations, such as extraneous 
flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, I would be an essential 
asset to the healthcare industry in any time of crisis. 
The Petitioner also provided a "Proposed Endeavor Statement" that provides, in part: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on my extensive experience in the medical field with 
education and consultation on the therapeutic benefits of CBD. I plan to further engage 
in researching The Endocannabinoid System (TES) and its biological effects 
throughout our central and peripheral nervous system. I feel that it is imperative that I 
educate, develop, and employ medical professionals and benefit patients with the 
science of CBD to further de-stigmatize the plant that has been used for thousands of 
years as medicine.... I plan to educate, consult and develop the analytics 
on... TES ... and CBD.. . . I look forward to continuing the research and developing 
models for medical professionals pertaining to the therapeutic and medicinal benefits 
ofCBD .... 
We note that, although mentioned in her personal statement, the Petitioner's statement declaring her 
proposed endeavor does not include discussion of an intention to incorporate the management of 
resources during natural disasters into that endeavor; therefore, it appears that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is to do work related to the use of therapeutic CBD. The petitioner's description 
of that work, however, is ambiguous; for example, her intention to develop "analytics" and "models 
for medical professionals" is not accompanied by any explanation of what those developments would 
look like in terms of work products that would translate to treatment systems for wide utilization in 
the medical field. 
In discussing how the evidence of record did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the 
proposed endeavor, the Director's decision cites the lack of "a detailed business plan or model for [the 
Petitioner's] proposed consulting services." On appeal, the Petitioner contends that this type of 
documentation involves an assessment not of the proposed endeavor, but of the "proposed 
3 
employment," and that as a "'model or plan for future activities,"' according to Dhanasar, it should 
be considered under the second prong. We disagree. While a business plan or similar documentation 
may be relevant in evaluating eligibility under the second prong, its presence-or lack thereof-may 
be probative in the assessment of a proposed endeavor's national importance; realistic entrepreneurial 
endeavors are, by nature, grounded in a plan for what the entrepreneur's intent will actually entail. 
The impact of a venture cannot be evaluated without, for example, information concerning how it will 
be fonded, where the business will operate, the Petitioner's specific job duties, or a set of definitive 
goals for the venture. Here, the Petitioner has provided generalized descriptions of her intent to 
improve healthcare through providing education in the use of CBD therapeutics. As another example 
of the lack of detail in the Petitioner's statements regarding her future intent, she indicates that she 
currently works in underserved areas in Florida, but she does not sufficiently explain whether or how 
she will continue to work in underserved areas as a consultant to medical professionals. The Petitioner 
has not included sufficient documentation that defines her particular proposed endeavor in a manner 
that would demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, its national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we farther 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated 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 to have national importance." Id. at 890. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 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. 
The Petitioner has provided reports, research papers, and studies related to CBD in healthcare and 
issues of medical care shortages. Although related to the field in which the Petitioner intends to work, 
this documentation does not clarify or establish the importance of the Petitioner's individual endeavor 
as a consultant. And while, in her brief, the Petitioner points to documentation showing that CBD 
research has a role in national healthcare initiatives, she has not sufficiently documented the 
relationship between her proposed endeavor and those initiatives. It is not clear from the evidence 
how the Petitioner's proposed work as a consultant would impact the field of healthcare, or any 
subcategory within the field, at a national level. 
The Petitioner also indicates that letters of support included in the record, alongside the healthcare 
documentation, serve as evidence of the endeavor's economic benefits to the nation. The brief states: 
The Petitioner's endeavor in the instant case holds much greater national importance 
from a social welfare standpoint, as was clearly argued and supported by objective 
evidence throughout the record. While the economic benefits of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor may be secondary, the primary benefits lie in the improvements to 
the overall social fabric of the nation in reducing the impact of opioids and reliance 
upon them for traditional pain relieve therapeutic treatments. 
4 
The letters of support largely discuss the Petitioner's experience and qualifications to continue work 
in healthcare, emphasizing, for example, that she "will add substantial contribution[ s] to the 
development of healthcare in the United States" and "will serve the national interest." These letters 
do not expound on the Petitioner's endeavor itself or provide probative evidence of how her individual 
consultancy business will have a positive and significant impact regionally or nationally. Although 
the Petitioner may assert that she has fully articulated her endeavor and that its economic and social 
impact will rise to the level of national importance, her unsupported statements are insufficient to meet 
her burden of proof. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she has not 
established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5