dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 8, 2024 In Re: 31841022 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a hospice company, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification for the Beneficiary, a healthcare management specialist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and a subsequent motion, concluding 
that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before us on a motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised 
on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes within the 
original petition. According to the Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion), any new facts and documentary evidence must demonstrate eligibility for the 
required immigration benefit at the time the application or petition was filed. 
Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may 
grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential 
to change the outcome). A motion to reopen that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits letters of support from licensed long-term care facilities, 
a presentation plan for the proposed endeavor, a strategy for distribution, and a grant proposal. In our 
prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the first 
prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We found 
the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. See id. at 889 
(providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the petitioner must 
establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). We addressed the 
Petitioner's contentions regarding the importance of palliative care, hospice staffing shortages and the 
ability to disseminate the Beneficiary's research findings and proposed program and determined they 
did not demonstrate any broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor at a level of 
national importance. See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of 
"potential prospective impact" and "broader implications"). 
We further determined that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the proposed endeavor would 
positively impact the national economy. See id. ("An endeavor that has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area, ... may well be understood to have national importance."). We concluded that the 
record did not show through supporting documentation how the particular services sufficiently extend 
beyond the patients of selected doctors who were introduced to the Beneficiary's research to impact 
the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. On 
motion, the Petitioner asserts that Dhanasar does not require a significant economic impact and that 
the newly submitted evidence explains how the program will be disseminated to create a positive 
impact to healthcare. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, she did 
not state new facts as they relate to our prior decision. The letters from hospices largely repeat what 
was already included in the record. Further, the Petitioner asserts, without corroborating 
documentation, that "if the endeavor succeeds in the most competitive region, it will succeed 
nationally." The Beneficiary's unsubstantiated distribution strategy indicating potential to influence 
palliative care practices nationwide, does not illustrate the "potential prospective impact" of her actual 
proposed work, or how it will impact the hospice care field more broadly. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889, and 883 respectively. This is similar to the shortcoming ofthe individual in the Dhanasar decision 
in which we determined his teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance 
because they would not "impact the field of [science, technology, engineering, and math] education 
more broadly." Id. at 893. The documents submitted with the motion to reopen do not demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of hospice care, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the 
Petitioner's end of life procedures and treatments would impact the palliative care field more broadly. 
For the reasons discussed above, the documentation submitted on motion does not overcome our 
original decision, finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her endeavor has national importance. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2