dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 01, 2024 In Re: 34851623 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 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. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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: 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under the Dhanasar framework 
and will dismiss the appeal. 
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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to operate her own consulting company, __
I I focused on providing specialized technology services to the health care industry. Relying 
on her experience using artificial intelligence (AI) and data analytics within the healthcare field, the 
Petitioner intends to offer "strategic consulting services to help healthcare organizations develop and 
implement AI-driven strategies that align with their goals and objectives." Specifically, her company 
will "focus on delivering innovative solutions and strategic insights, offering expert advice to 
healthcare entities eager to leverage AI for enhancing healthcare services, improving patient care, and 
boosting overall operational efficiency." According to her business plan, these services will primarily 
include data management and AI solutions; strategic consultancy and professional training; and 
continuous support and partnership. She intends to target her company's services to a variety of 
companies in the healthcare industry, including healthcare providers and institutions, health 
technology startups, pharmaceutical and life science companies, government healthcare agencies, 
health insurance providers, and nonprofit organizations operating within the healthcare industry. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner asserted that her company is "set to significantly impact the U.S. healthcare 
industry by optimizing operations, enhancing patient care, and improving overall quality of health 
services." 
In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a business plan which included a summary her 
company's offerings, a market analysis, and five-year employment and financial projections. 
Additionally, she submitted multiple letters of recommendation discussing the Petitioner's relevant 
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 
experience and her prior research relating to the use of data analytics, machine learning, and AI 
solutions in healthcare field, several industry articles and reports on the impact of AI and data analytics 
on improving health care processes and outcomes, government publications discussing the benefits of 
attracting STEM professionals to work in the United States, and evidence of prospective investment 
interest in her company. 2 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) to provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to supplement 
the record, the Director denied the petition, concluding that, while the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit of her endeavor, she did not establish its national importance under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established 
that her company's operations would result in broader implications to her field, beyond the benefits to 
her prospective clients. Moreover, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that 
her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive 
economic effects discussed in Dhanasar. 3 Accordingly, because the Petitioner did not establish the 
national importance of her endeavor, the Director concluded that she was not eligible for the requested 
national interest waiver, and the Director did not evaluate the Petitioner's claims pertaining to the 
remaining prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly evaluate the record, and did not 
consider the proposed endeavor's impact on matters that a government entity has described as having 
national importance or its potential to impact societal welfare. The Petitioner also contends that the 
Director erred by not evaluating the remaining Dhanasar prongs, citing to Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N 
Dec. 786 (BIA 1994). But in Matter of M-P- the Board of Immigration Appeals found they were 
unable to meaningfully review an immigration judge's motion denial when no explanation was 
provided for the decision. Here, the Director issued a decision that clearly articulated the basis for 
denial was the Petitioner's failure to satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which is a 
requirement for establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Likewise, although we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not directly discuss every piece 
of evidence she considers as salient to establishing her eligibility for a national interest waiver, she 
has not established how those omitted documents demonstrated eligibility. In other words, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Director's failure to discuss every document in detail changed 
the outcome of the case. For example, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in their decision 
because they did not evaluate evidence establishing interests from potential investors, evidence of the 
Petitioner's financial capacity to start the endeavor, as well as evidence of her prior participation in 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 In their decision, the Director stated that the record did not show that the Petitioner's endeavor "would undoubtedly 
benefit the United States through increased income, employment of U.S. workers, and contribution to the country's Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) or reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects' contemplated by Dhanasar" While 
we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record does not show the Petitioner's endeavor will result in substantial 
positive economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar, we agree with the Petitioner that Dhanasar does not require an 
endeavor to "undoubtedly" benefit the United States, and accordingly we withdraw the Director's statement. Likewise, 
we also withdraw the Director's statement that the Petitioner did not show her work served as an impetus for progress in 
her field, as this is not required to establish the prospective impact of a proposed endeavor. Nonetheless, because the 
Petitioner has not othe1wise established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her endeavor is of national impo11ance, 
we decline to remand the matter on that basis. 
3 
panel and seminars and relevant awards. First, we note that the letter in the record relating to 
prospective investment states that the summary of terms to invest "has not been formally approved," 
by the equity company, and "does not constitute a commitment to invest." Additionally, while 
evidence of an investment interest "may provide independent validation and support of a finding of 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor or of the petitioner being well placed to advance the 
proposed endeavor," investment interest does not necessarily establish the broader impact of a 
proposed endeavor and its national importance. 4 Similarly, on appeal the Petitioner continues to rely 
on her professional experience and background to assert the national importance of her endeavor. We 
recognize the Petitioner's extensive experience in the field, as well as her involvement in relevant 
research, but a petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's 
second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. 
Further, it is not enough to demonstrate errors in an agency's decision; the Petitioner must also 
establish that they were prejudiced by the mistakes. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009); 
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 203 (2016). While we agree that the Director did not 
discuss every form of evidence she presented, the Petitioner doesn't establish through her appeal brief 
that these materials are sufficient to demonstrate her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Accordingly, even ifwe agreed that the Director's failure to discuss each piece of evidence was an error, 
such a lapse would appear to be harmless and is insufficient grounds upon which to base this appeal. 
Errors can be overlooked when they had no bearing on the substance of an agency's decision. Aguilar 
v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition Juice Co. v. United States Food & 
Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2022)). The party that "seeks to have a judgment set aside 
because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted." Shinseki, 556 
U.S. at 409 (quoting Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943)); Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 203. 
Turning to our review of the record, we agree with the Director that, although the Petitioner has 
established the substantial merit of her endeavor, the record does not establish, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance contemplated 
under the Dhanasar framework. In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may 
work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that 
"[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. 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. 
As stated, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in not evaluating her claims relating to her 
company's prospective impact on matters government entities have identified as having national 
importance. The Petitioner submitted multiple articles discussing the challenges facing the healthcare 
industry, including rising healthcare costs, health inequities, and data fragmentation, and the 
4 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)( 4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-paii-f-chapter-5. 
4 
governmental interests in addressing these challenges. These articles speak to the importance of and 
interest in relying on data analytics and AI in addressing challenges facing the healthcare industry, but 
do not establish the national importance of her specific endeavor. The articles do not address the 
Petitioner or her specific proposed endeavor. And the record does not sufficiently explain and support 
with evidence how her consulting company would directly address these initiatives on a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
For example, the Petitioner contends that her company will address the issue of data fragmentation of 
patient information by offering data management services using data analysis and predictive modeling, 
explaining that this work could "help healthcare institutions in facilitating improved care coordination 
and decision-making." Yet, even if these benefits are realized by her prospective clients, the Petitioner 
has not explained how this would meaningfully impact the field or the government initiatives 
discussed in the record on a level commensurate with national importance, rather than only benefiting 
her customers. And, while the Petitioner relies on the importance of the AI and data analytics field, 
as stated above, when evaluating the national importance of an endeavor we look to the prospective 
impact of the specific endeavor rather than the importance of the collective field. 
Similarly, on appeal, the Petitioner relies on her prior projects to establish that her endeavor can 
influence industry standards and contribute to the advancement and adoption of AI solutions in the 
health care industry, but she does not establish how her work on similar projects could rise to the level 
of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. For example, in one project discussed the 
Petitioner used data to build and analyze indicators to improve patient wait times, which led to the 
reduction of delays and wait times, improved profitability, and increased revenue, which the Petitioner 
claims is an example of how she has the "capacity to influence industry practices and contribute to the 
advancement and adoption of AI and data analytics not only within her immediate community but also 
on a national scale." Yet, the Petitioner only identifies ways in which her work directly impact her 
employer, she does not explain how this same work, even if replicated through her endeavor, could 
result in broader implications to the industry. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown the broader 
implications of her proposed endeavor, however admirable, rise to the level of national importance. 
And while we acknowledge the Petitioner's reference to USCTS policy recognizing the importance of 
STEM fields and role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering progress in technological 
advancements,5 the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor will foster progress in STEM 
technologies or result in broader implications to her field. A petitioner must support assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Moreover, 
while the Petitioner asserted her intent to train other professionals in her field, she did not establish 
that any training she would provide, while certainly beneficial to her prospective trainees, would result 
in broader implications to the field. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the 
field of education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. In the 
same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader 
impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the Petitioner's clients or 
prospective trainees, like the offerings outlined in her business plan, would not have broader 
implications to the field. Id. at 893. 
5 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.5(D)(2). 
5 
Likewise, while the Petitioner asserts on appeal that her company has a significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers and generate substantial positive economic effects, the record does not establish that 
these benefits, even ifrealized, will rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that by concluding that the employment and payroll projections did 
not establish the economic impact of her endeavor, the Director ignored the prospective impact her 
company will have on the overall healthcare system. However, as stated, the Petitioner has not shown 
that her company will lead to broader impact beyond her customers, nor does the record support that, 
even if her company provides services to their prospective customers in reducing costs, and improving 
efficiency this would lead to substantial economic effects contemplated in Dhanasar. And, while we 
acknowledge the projections in the business plan, the business plan provides little explanation and 
objective basis of these projections. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity 
directly resulting from her proposed endeavor would result in the substantial positive economic effects 
contemplated in Dhanasar. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6