dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 06, 2024 In Re: 31200836 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a doctor of medicine and a healthcare management professional , 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record establishes 
that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but does not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess a U.S. doctorate or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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." 
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 l&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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is a doctor of medicine and a healthcare management professional. She submitted a 
diploma and transcripts for her degree as a physician and surgeon from ________ 
_______ in Colombia. In addition, she submitted an academic evaluation that states 
her degree is equivalent to a U.S. doctor of medicine degree, and further states that she has two years 
of graduate level study in healthcare management. The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and we agree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to, "contribute to the America [sic] healthcare 
system by supporting the Latino community through an affordable and quality healthcare service 
model which combines outpatient setting, with the purpose of addressing pathologies such as cancer, 
hypertension, and vaccination processes; thus, improving their quality of life and strengthening U.S. 
public health." The proposed endeavor will operate in Connecticut and offer first level healthcare 
services as well as home level services to promote health, early disease detection, and overall well­
being in Latino community with a special focus on those without healthcare and the undocumented 
population. The record contains articles discussing the challenges facing the Hispanic population and 
healthcare in the United States and how this is a matter of importance to the U.S. government. We 
conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
1 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). 
2 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner contends that she 
submitted a well-defined proposed endeavor as well as supporting evidence from reputable, objective 
sources and that the Director did not consider all elements of the evidence. First, the Petitioner 
highlights the industry articles in the record. The Director determined that the articles go towards the 
national importance of the industry and not the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner 
emphasizes on appeal, "[t]he provided articles indeed demonstrate an interest from the United States 
in harnessing the Petitioner's knowledge and expertise." In determining 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 specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Dhanasar 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The industry reports and articles in the record discuss the U.S. 
government's interest in industries related to the proposed endeavor and while we recognize the value 
and importance of the industry, working in the industry is insufficient to establish the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of 
the industry to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner 
submitted a copy of the "Executive Order on Continuing to Strengthen Americans' Access to 
Affordable, Quality Health Coverage." Although the executive order provides good background 
information, demonstrates the U.S. government's interest in the industry, and provides evidence of 
substantial merit; it does not speak to the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its impact on the industry. 
Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed endeavor's broader impact on the 
industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the "national importance" element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that, "the articles and government publications provide a 
comprehensive view of the current healthcare landscape in the United States, particularly as it pertains 
to the Latino community," and "they highlight the existing challenges and urgent need for innovative 
solutions" that her proposed endeavor provides. However, the record does not establish what 
innovative solutions the Petitioner is proposing aside from opening and operating a health care 
company that will target helping the Latino community in preventing certain health issues. In addition, 
the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will broadly impact the health care 
industry or significantly reduce the existing challenges that the record highlights. Instead, the business 
plan discusses how the Petitioner plans to operate her business, providing health care services to Latino 
clients that either do not have proper health care coverage or are undocumented. 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, without 
sufficient documentary evidence of a broader impact to the healthcare industry, the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor does not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework as it only establishes a benefit to her prospective clients. 
Dhanasar states that an 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. The Petitioner addresses the proposed 
endeavor's lack of potential to employ U.S. workers by stating that it is, "[j]ust an example of a factor 
3 
that may be considered. It is not inherently necessary to meet each of the possible evidentiary 
examples provided in the precedent decision in order to prove that a proposed endeavor is of national 
importance." While this is only one of the factors to consider, the Petitioner must establish that the 
proposed endeavor is of national importance by a preponderance of the evidence, which the record has 
not otherwise established as discussed above. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director was incorrect in stating that the record contains no 
evidence of substantial positive economic impacts of the proposed endeavor and that the record 
contains ample documentation to corroborate the economic benefits of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. We conclude that record does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will 
have substantial positive economic effects. The initial petition asserts that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is nationally important because it will improve the health and quality of life of the Latino 
community and does not address any significant economic impact attributable to the proposed 
endeavor. In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner addresses economic impact briefly 
by stating that the proposed endeavor will, "[h]elp the U.S. to address its currently overburdened 
healthcare sector, thereby contributing to promoting America's prosperity and opportunity." This 
statement is broad and does not offer any specific or qualifiable economic impact attributable to the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Lastly in reviewing the business plan, the Petitioner asserts that there 
is a link between health and the economy; "[t]he strongest connection between health and the economy 
is sustaining a healthier workforce." The Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor will contribute 
to improve health and therefore strengthen local economies. While her proposed endeavor may benefit 
the lives of her direct clients, as stated above, the record does not establish that the benefit will impact 
the field more broadly and in tum, improve the health and economy in a broader way to rise to the 
level of national importance. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, 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 ofL-A-C­
' 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence 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. 
4