dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2024 In Re: 33960750 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the healthcare industry, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
an individual of exceptional ability, 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 petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, she did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 l&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. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor 's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) 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. 
Id. 
In the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner initially described her 
endeavor as working as a nursing instructor and teacher, to "[b]]oth teach[] and research[] patient care 
in classroom and clinical units for nursing students." However, in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner revised her proposed endeavor. Specifically,the Petitioner 
proposed to establish a medical and healthcare training company in Florida. In the business 
plan, the Petitioner stated she will be the chief executive officer and chief operating officer of the 
company and that the company will be "geared towards refining the skills and ethical standards of 
healthcare professionals, catering to a diverse range of individuals and healthcare organizations" and 
"will offer a comprehensive array of short and long-term courses, both virtually and in-person." In 
addition, the Petitioner claimed that her company will make "a profound national impact by addressing 
skill gaps and nurturing a highly skilled workforce capable of delivering exceptional patient care." 
As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has materially changed her proposed endeavor 
from the time of submission to the RFE. Owning a business and working as a nursing instructor and 
teacher are two different undertakings even when they are in the same healthcare education field. The 
knowledge and skills required to manage and operate a business are different from the skills an 
employee within a company would need, though both require healthcare knowledge. A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1988). Accordingly, we conclude that the focus of her endeavor has materially changed. If significant 
material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather 
than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b )( 1 ). 
For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
Nevertheless, the Director has acknowledged and analyzed all of the evidence the Petitioner submitted 
initially and in response to the RFE including her business plan, support letter, an opinion letter from 
a professor, a letter of commercial intent, a letter of intent to invest, and published material regarding 
immigrant businesses, shortage of nurses, nursing education, and healthcare professional training. 
However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient information and evidence 
to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national 
importance. That is, the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would 
stand to sufficiently extend beyond her future clientele to impact the healthcare industry more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance. Or in other words, the evidence in the record also 
does not support the national importance of the materially transformed version of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the documentary evidence previously submitted demonstrates the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner discusses her business plan and 
highlights the evidence previously submitted. Moreover, the Petitioner continues to claim that her 
proposed endeavor will address the "shortage of healthcare professionals through targeted educational 
2 
programs, improv[e] healthcare accessibility and quality in underserved areas, and driv[ e] economic 
revitalization in economically depressed regions." 
Regarding the shortage of healthcare professionals, a national shortage of healthcare professionals is 
not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. 
Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor 
certification process. 
In support of her endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner highlights staffing and revenue 
projections in the submitted business plan projecting that her company will create 54 direct jobs, pay 
wages of over $7 million, generate over $9 million in total net income, and pay over $450 thousand in 
income taxes, all within its first five years of operation. Importantly however, these employment and 
revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a 
significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national 
economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the creation of 54 additional jobs in this sector 
or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit 
commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner states her company "aims to establish training centers and operational 
facilities in areas that are economically depressed and under-sourced," the Petitioner has not provided 
evidence that the area where her company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would 
employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or 
its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related 
tax revenue. While the intention is meritorious, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence 
to support these claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to a level of national 
importance because the duties did not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Likewise, the 
Petitioner here has not established how providing her healthcare training services stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond her clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. We acknowledge that the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor is "a catalyst for 
economic and social regeneration" and "not only fosters economic development but also brings about 
significant improvements in social conditions, contributing to a healthier, more resilient society." The 
Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities 
would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her industry or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner also notes that her proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives, including the 
Affordable Care Act. However, merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 889. Instead, when determining 
3 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. Thus, while we acknowledge 
that the healthcare industry is important, this fact is insufficient to establish the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit 
sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The 
Petitioner has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4