dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2024 In Re: 33963489 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief health officer (CHO), 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 EB-2 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 
is a professional holding an advanced degree, he did not establish 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 pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 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, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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 unpublish ed decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have 
reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner explained that his proposed endeavor is to work as a CHO to ensure the effective 
management and administration of a hospital, and his day-to-day duties will involve the supervision 
and management of the daily operations to ensure patients receive proper medical care. The Petitioner 
also stated that by leveraging his unique blend of medical and business expertise, his goal is to deliver 
innovative and cost-effective healthcare solutions, particularly targeting underserved populations. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that he 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director determined, however, that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance, and that, on balance, it 
would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
a brief that was copied virtually verbatim from its letter submitted in response to a request for evidence 
(RFE). The Petitioner has not contested any aspect of the Director's decision and has not identified 
an erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for the appeal. 
We note that the Director's decision adequately addressed the evidence submitted with respect to 
whether the Petitioner demonstrated that he merited a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and explained why such evidence was insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden. 
Further, the decision reflects that the Director took into consideration the Petitioner's response to the 
RFE, which is now re-submitted on appeal in lieu of a brief addressing the denial decision. The 
Petitioner was therefore given a sufficient explanation of the grounds for denial as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i), and a fair opportunity to contest the decision. We agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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 "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As it relates to the 
Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than the 
2 
importance of the healthcare industry, immigration, and entrepreneurism. 2 Further, "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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, can inform us 
of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications are viewed 
solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular proposed 
endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader implications 
apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. 
Moreover, 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 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. We recognize the 
overall value of managing a hospital; however, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the hospital and the patients served 
by that hospital, or that his proposed work would otherwise have broader implications for the 
healthcare industry or initiatives. Specifically, the Petitioner emphasizes his goal to reduce healthcare 
costs by leveraging technology and innovation; however, the record does not establish with specific, 
probative information how the Petitioner's services would have broader implications beyond the 
patients of the hospital he will manage. The record does not establish the Petitioner has plans to 
introduce novel methodologies or techniques that may be disseminated to or adopted by others 
operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate how he will contribute to research and 
development of the healthcare industry as a whole. Here, the record does not show through supporting 
documentation how his services as a CHO at a specific hospital stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his prospective patients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. In addition, the Petitioner submitted email correspondence 
from recruiters to the Petitioner regarding several employment opportunities but none of them were 
for the position of chief health officer, and the Petitioner did not explain if he might take one of these 
employment opportunities instead of the position of chief health officer which may change the 
proposed endeavor. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner's business plan indicated that he would provide more 
affordable healthcare which in tum will allow individuals to have more disposable income to spend 
on goods and services and thus creating a ripple effect benefitting the U.S economy and creating 
employment opportunities. However, the Petitioner does not explain how managing a hospital leads 
2 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
3 
to an individual changing the affordability of healthcare. Changing healthcare laws and prices is a 
complicated process and the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show how an executive 
of a hospital will change the national cost of healthcare. The Petitioner must support his assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. 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 the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4