dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 34966112 
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 and motion 
to reopen. The matter is now before us on a second 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). 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 l&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). 
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 the 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 referred to the 
Petitioner's assertions regarding the importance of palliative care and hospice staffing shortages, in 
addition to the plan to disseminate the Beneficiary's research findings and proposed program. We 
determined that the record did not demonstrate broader implications of the proposed endeavor at a 
level of national importance or that the proposed endeavor would positively impact the national 
economy. See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential 
prospective impact" and "broader implications" and noting 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, ... may well be understood to have national importance."). We 
concluded that the record did not show through supporting documentation how the proposed services 
extend beyond the individuals 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 the first motion to reopen, the Petitioner provided letters of support from licensed long-term care 
facilities, a presentation plan for the proposed endeavor, a strategy for distribution, and a grant 
proposal. The Petitioner asserted that the new evidence explained how the program will be 
disseminated to create a positive impact to healthcare and contended that Dhanasar did not require a 
significant economic impact. We indicated that the letters from hospices generally repeated 
information that was already in the record and found that the Petitioner did not provide corroborating 
documentation to support the assertion that the proposed endeavor will succeed nationally if it 
succeeds in the most competitive region. We determined that the documents submitted on motion and 
the Beneficiary's unsubstantiated distribution strategy indicating potential to influence palliative care 
practices nationwide did not establish broader implications of the proposed endeavor at a level of 
national importance. 
With the instant motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits reports and articles discussing the demand 
for quality hospice care and assisted living facilities in the United States, a letter from the individual 
who prepared the Beneficiary's strategy of focusing her palliative care work in Southern California, 
documents reflecting the Beneficiary's membership in the American Academy of Hospice and 
Palliative Medicine (AAHPM), and a letter from the administrator of an assisted living facility in 
California. The Petitioner asserts that although the Beneficiary's current strategy focuses on Southern 
California, this is a natural step for any nationwide initiative; the locality in this case I I I Iis the size of a good country and represents a significant portion of the U.S. economy and 
population; and the Beneficiary has begun using her AAHPM membership to reach the nationwide 
industry. The Petitioner contends that the significant potential of the proposed endeavor is illustrated 
by the fact that the methodology is also applicable to assisted living facilities. To support this 
contention, the Petitioner refers to the letter from the administrator of an assisted living facility in 
I I who indicates that the Beneficiary's techniques have proven effective and beneficial for her 
residents. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to show the broader 
impact of the Beneficiary's work and corroborate the assertion that the proposed endeavor would 
broadly influence the hospice and palliative care field and rise to the level of national importance. The 
documentation submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome our previous decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2