dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Home Health Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 13, 2024 In Re: 31033639 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a home health aide, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, or, in the alternative, as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish she is eligible for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional, or that she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national 
interest. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
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. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of 
discretion,2 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a home care consulting business in the United States. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree.3 In the decision, the Director 
explained that the Petitioner did not show that her foreign degree is in her intended specialty of home 
elder care. The Director also noted that the Petitioner did not show that the U.S. equivalent of her 
foreign degree is above that of a U.S. bachelor's degree, or that it is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree followed by five years of progressive experience in her specialty. Upon de nova 
review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 classification. 
The Petitioner submitted a diploma and an academic transcript from 
indicating she was admitted in 1982 and was awarded qualification of biologist, entomologist, 
biological protection of plants in 1987. She also submitted an academic evaluation which briefly states 
that the five-year program "is a continuous curriculum incorporating undergraduate as well as graduate 
study. The diploma is, in level and intent, the academic equivalent of a bachelor's degree and a 
master's degree in biology from a regionally accredited institution in the United States." Although 
the evaluation states the Petitioner's foreign degree is the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, the 
Director determined this evaluation conflicted with the educational credentials for Uzbekistan as set 
out by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers' (AACRAO) 4 in 
the Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE). Based on EDGE, the Director determined that 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The Petitioner does not claim eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, 
arts, or business. See section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
4 AACRAO is a nonprofit professional association of more than 11,000 higher education admissions and registration 
professionals who represent more than 2,600 institutions in over 40 countries. See http://www.aacrao.org/who-we-are. 
2 
the Petitioner's education is not the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree but is the foreign 
equivalent of aU.S. bachelor's degree. 
While we do not agree with some of the Director's analysis of the evidence, we nevertheless agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her diploma is the foreign equivalent of 
aU.S. master's degree. The Petitioner received her diploma from I Iwhich 
is in Uzbekistan. However, according to EDGE, Uzbekistan declared its independence from the Soviet 
Union in 1991, which is after the Petitioner received her diploma in 1987. Therefore, the Director's 
consideration of the Petitioner's diploma received in 1987 with the academic credentials for 
Uzbekistan are misplaced. 
The academic evaluation submitted by the Petitioner indicates her academic records are from the 
"[ff]ormer USSR (now Uzbekistan)" with a brief statement that the coursework included graduate level 
studies. However, the evaluation does not provide an analysis of the coursework or an explanation 
detailing its foreign country equivalency determination. Without further evidence, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated her degree is the foreign equivalent of aU.S. master's degree. 
The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of an advanced 
degree professional because her degree, which is in biology with a specialization in entomology and 
biological protection of plants, is not related to her proposed area of specialty, home health care. Also, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate having five years of post-baccalaureate 
experience in her field. The Director explained that the letters from her former employers conflicted 
with evidence in the record and therefore were not credible to establish the dates of her work history 
having five years of progressive experience. We agree that the employment letters do not show the 
Petitioner has five years of progressive experience in her field. While the letters indicate her job title 
was ahome health aide, they do not detail her job duties. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate whether 
the Petitioner's experience is in her intended specialty of managing a home care consulting business. 
In addition to the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated she qualifies as a member of the 
professions. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(I) states that an EB-2 visa petition may be filed on 
behalf of a noncitizen "who is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines a profession as "one of the occupations listed in section 
101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." 
As pointed out in the Director's decision, the Petitioner did not complete portions of the petition, 
including Part 6, questions 2 and 3, which requests information about the Petitioner's proposed 
employment in the United States. While the Petitioner indicated she intends to have the job title of 
entrepreneur in elder care, she did not state the proposed standard occupation classification (SOC) 
code5 and indicated that the nontechnical job description of her proposed employment is included in 
attached documents. 
The Petitioner's statement indicates she intends to establish and manage a home care consulting 
business focused on elder care. Her business plan explains that her business would "help health care 
5 An SOC code is a statistical standard that federal agencies use to classify workers into job-related categories. See U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Standard Occupational Classification," https://www.bls.gov/soc/. 
3 
organizations improve their performance" by "[p ]roviding much needed consulting on how to properly 
take care of the elderly." Her statement indicates her business' consulting services would include 
workshops and creating "peer-to-peer programs" to help "improve the wellness and psychological 
wellbeing [sic] of their elderly patients." To support her petition, she provided letters from her former 
employers indicating she has worked as a home health aide. 
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the education requirement for "Home Health Aides" 
under SOC code 31-1121.00 occupations states, "usually require a high school diploma." 
See U.S. Department of Labor, O*NET Summary Report for '"Home Health Aides," 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/31-1121.00. Without further evidence, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that her intended occupation of managing a home care consulting business requires 
the minimum of a U.S. bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent, or that otherwise she is a member 
of the professions. Because the Petitioner has not established that she is a member of the professions 
under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2), she is not eligible to be classified as a member of the professions with an 
advanced degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(I). 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not established she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate meeting any of the three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not show that her 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit or is of national importance; that she is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor; or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. Upon de nova review, we agree 
with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the labor 
certification would be in the national interest. 6 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 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." Id. 
The Petitioner provided an initial statement indicating she proposes to establish a "business as a 
consultant for home attendant services focused on the treatment of elderly patients' [sic] .... " Her 
statement explains that her business would provide "effective approaches for these agencies to 
improve the wellness and psychological wellbeing of their elderly patients," as well as workshops to 
help "create peer-to-peer program [sic], which could be implemented online, enriching the lives of 
their senior patients through life-balancing principles." In her response to a request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan and additional documentation relating to her business. 
However, the Director did not consider these additional documents because they are dated after the 
6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
date of filing the petition, citing Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Instead, the 
Director only considered the Petitioner's initial statement and found that her proposed endeavor was 
not sufficiently defined to determine it has substantial merit. 
Upon de novo review, the Petitioner has established that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
The Petitioner's initial statement indicated her intent to establish a home health care consulting 
business, and the business plan and additional documentation included with her RFE response 
provided further explanation of her intent to establish her business. The business plan details the 
establishment of her business inl INew York and her business' operations. Based on the 
foregoing, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit 
of her proposed endeavor. 
The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor would extend 
beyond her business at a level commensurate with national importance. Besides indicating her intent 
to be self-employed as an entrepreneur in the home elder care field, the Director determined the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently detail her "specific activities, goals, and/or projects" to demonstrate her 
proposed endeavor has the potential to broadly impact her field or the U.S. economy. Accordingly, 
the Director found that the Petitioner's proposed work to establish and manage a home care consulting 
business did not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the evidence submitted meets the requirements under the 
Dhanasar framework. She argues that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because it wi II 
have a potential impact on the elder care field by helping to meet the increased demand for home care 
workers. She maintains her business plan sufficiently detai Is how she intends to carry out her proposed 
endeavor in order to respond to the expected growth in the elder care industry with "high-quality elder 
care services" that will elevate the healthcare industry. She claims that her business' potential 
economic effects will contribute to more than her business, but also the nation, including the creation 
of jobs for U.S. workers. She also argues that her business' focus on elderly home care shows its 
commitment to more than profits, but also social welfare and its support of U.S. government legislation 
focused on enhancing the quality of life for elderly individuals. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989). Upon de novo review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the evidence submitted 
establishes her eligibility by a preponderance of evidence, as discussed below. 
The Petitioner submitted her business plan which provides an overview of her proposed home care 
consulting business. The business plan gives ageneral summary of the business' services stressing its 
consulting would be "tailored to address the specific priorities of each individual organization." Her 
business would provide consulting to home care organizations in thel larea with a focus 
on improving their administration and performance; evaluating and developing elder care programs; 
and training management, staff, and the community. The business plan also provides an analysis of 
5 
the home care industry in the United States, including the expected growth and demand in the industry 
due to the aging U.S. population, as well as the business' proposed marketing and sales strategies. 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 893. We noted that "[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. at 889. Here, the evidence does not 
suggest that the Petitioner's work establishing a home care consulting business would impact the elder 
care and healthcare fields more broadly. In Dhanasar, 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. Here, the Petitioner's general statements that she intends to be an 
entrepreneur whose business would benefit the U.S. economy by hiring employees in a growing 
industry or would benefit social welfare by providing home care to the elderly, do not rise to the level 
of the national importance. 
We recognize the importance of the home care industry, the fields of home care and elder care, and 
related careers; however, merely working in the home care industry or establishing a home care 
consulting business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
We acknowledge that a shortage of home care professionals for the elderly demonstrates substantial 
merit of a proposed endeavor; however, it does not render a proposed endeavor nationally important 
under Dhanasar 's framework, as it does not in itself establish the proposed endeavor's impact in the 
field. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has established how her proposed endeavor would affect 
national home care employment levels or the U.S. economy more broadly consistent with national 
importance. The record does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will address a 
shortage of qualified home care workers. 
To further support the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted an opinion from 
a professor of sociology at _________ The opinion, however, focuses on the 
expected growth of the home care industry, specifically for the elderly. Based on the Petitioner's 
academic credentials and professional experience, the opinion indicates that the Petitioner's business 
would be in a position to provide training and development to employees to ensure "high-quality 
services to home care organizations." This would "fill in the gap" of needed home care services to 
the elderly. The opinion generally states that the Petitioner's business can "substantially contribute to 
the nation's growth" through community development; the creation of new jobs and business; and 
contributing to the growth of the gross domestic product, exports, and the standard of living. In 
addition, the opinion lists U.S. government legislation that supports elder care and entrepreneurs, and 
claims that the Petitioner's business would impact such national initiatives. 
Instead of focusing on the Petitioner's specific endeavor having a prospective impact in the fields of 
elder care and home care, the opinion focuses on the need for elder care workers and how the 
Petitioner's academic credentials and experience make her well positioned to provide training and 
consulting advice to U.S. home care agencies. The opinion's reliance on the Petitioner's academic 
credentials and professional experience to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor 
6 
is misplaced. A petitioner's academic credentials and professional experience relate to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 889. The 
opinion's general statements that the Petitioner's business would have a potential prospective impact 
to the U.S. economy and social welfare; impact the field of home care; and support U.S. government 
initiatives are not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility. Matter of Caron Int 'I, 19 l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988); see also Matter of D-R, 
25 l&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Also, as previously 
discussed, stating that the Petitioner's work would support an important industry with a shortage of 
qualified workers is not sufficient to meet the "national importance" requirement under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact, including the asserted 
economic and social welfare benefits. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating independent and 
objective evidence to support her claims that her business' activities stand to provide economic and 
social welfare benefits to the United States. General statements and claims alone are not sufficient to 
demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic and social welfare benefits; the 
Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties 
as the owner and manager of her business would impact the elder care and home care fields more 
broadly, rather than benefiting her business and her proposed clients, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. The economic and social welfare benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous 
factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed home 
care consulting work and those claimed benefits. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This basis for denial is dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility 
and appellate arguments under the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
7 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Also, 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8