dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Home Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 08, 2024 In Re: 30214459 
Appeal of Texas 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish 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. 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,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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree.2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner 
has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be 
in the national interest. The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, she did not establish that it is of national importance, as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. The Director further found that while the Petitioner 
established she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, she did not show that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the 
United States under the third prong of Dhanasar. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
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 proposes to establish a home health aide business in I I Florida, providing 
personal care, companion care, and palliative care to patients at their homes. The business plan 
explains that her business would "ensure a better quality of life" for patients by assisting with their 
care, such as hygiene, administration of diet and medication, rehabilitation exercises, and nursing 
consultations. The Petitioner indicates that her work will contribute to overcoming the shortage of 
knowledgeable and qualified home health aides in the healthcare industry. We agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish "her proposed endeavor in this case stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
an organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly." Additionally, the Director 
1 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). 
2 As this matter is decided on the national interest waiver, we reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner meets the EB-2 
classification. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
determined she did not show that her business "has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation." Accordingly, the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor is of national importance. Upon de 
nova review, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the evidence submitted meets the requirements under the 
Dhanasar framework. She argues that her proposed endeavor has national importance based on its 
potential economic and social benefits to the United States. She maintains that her proposed endeavor 
has national importance with potential prospective "economic impact to an entire community." 
(emphasis omitted). The first part of her appeal brief stresses her academic background and 
professional experience to show her business would "help the health of the American population and, 
therefore, contribute to the country's economy." She claims '"[b]y being experienced in terms of early 
identification of other possible illnesses that might befall patients," her home health aide business 
"will ensure care, not only for pre-existing illnesses and struggles, but will also be able to provide 
preventive, quick, and effective care for any occurrence." 
However, the Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials and professional experience to establish 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her 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. at 890. 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. 
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. Id. at 893. The record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of 
healthcare, 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 work of establishing a home health aide business would impact 
the healthcare field more broadly such that it would rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner argues that her business would alleviate healthcare costs by focusing on preventative 
care and helping patients with the lower costs of home health aides. Her brief explains the importance 
of healthcare services and its contributions to the nation's economy because "healthy people are more 
productive" and spend less on healthcare costs. While improving the lives of its patients, her business 
would also improve the emotional health of their families and the economy. She argues her business 
plan provides detailed information of her plan and the viability of the business. With the petition, the 
Petitioner submitted her business plan which maintains that her proposed endeavor is of national 
importance based on her business assisting with the shortage of home healthcare agencies in the United 
States and its potential economic and social benefits. The business plan describes a market analysis 
of the expected growth of the home healthcare industry, the home healthcare industry's importance to 
the U.S. economy, the benefits of immigrant entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy, and several U.S. 
3 
government initiatives supporting healthcare, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The 
plan also explains the Petitioner's professional experience; the business' commitment to "social 
responsibility"; and the business' projected marketing, personnel, and financial plans. 
We acknowledge that a shortage of healthcare professionals 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 U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process directly addresses such shortages 
of qualified workers. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has established how her proposed 
endeavor would affect national healthcare professional employment levels or the U.S. economy more 
broadly consistent with national importance. And the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her 
proposed endeavor will address a shortage of qualified healthcare professionals or home health aides. 
We also recognize the importance of the healthcare industry, home healthcare, and related careers, and 
the significant contributions from immigrant entrepreneurs in the United States; however, merely 
establishing a home healthcare aide 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. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "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. 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. 
In the business plan, the Petitioner maintains her business would have economic benefits to the United 
States by creating direct and indirect jobs for U.S. workers in an "economically depressed area" of 
I !Florida; increasing revenue to the U.S. and local economies; and generating taxes for the 
United States and local communities. The business plan projects that in five years the business will 
hire eight or more employees, create 32.34 indirect jobs, and generate taxes of over a $220,000. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence, in her business plan or elsewhere, 
to support her claims that her business' activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to the 
United States and to economically depressed areas of Florida. The Petitioner's statements are not 
sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic and social benefits to the 
United States or local communities. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Even if we were to 
assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence showing that creating 
eight direct jobs, 32.34 indirect jobs, and generating taxes of over $220,000 over a five-year period 
rises to the level of national importance. 
The business plan also indicates that the Petitioner's business would suppmi nationally important 
matters which are significant to U.S. national security because they are recognized by the U.S. 
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) as critical and emerging technologies. She claims 
her business would impact fields on the NSTC's Critical and Emerging Technologies List Update 
because "all of them need home healthcare work .... " However, the Petitioner does not explain or 
4 
provide evidence showing how establishing a home health aide business is related to supporting 
critical and emerging technologies. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that her proposed endeavor would have social benefits based 
on her business' work with minority populations, particularly Hispanic and Brazilian populations. She 
maintains that minority populations face healthcare barriers in the United States and that her business 
would provide "innovative solutions" to "uplift these communities" and contribute to "a more 
inclusive and equitable society." With her background, her dedication to these communities, and her 
"understanding of their unique needs and challenges," she claims her endeavor would "create avenues 
for skill development, education, and empowerment that directly address the existing inequities." 
However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence corroborating her claims. The Petitioner's general 
claims that her business would provide social benefits to minority populations has not been established 
through independent and objective evidence. 
To further support the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner submitted an opinion from 
a professor for the nursing department atl Iin New York. The opinion mainly 
focuses on the importance of home healthcare, the need for home healthcare workers, and how the 
Petitioner's experience makes her qualified to teach and train other home health aides. The opinion 
explains the expected growth of the home healthcare industry because of the increase in the aging and 
disabled U.S. populations, and the importance of offering home care health services for patient health, 
reducing burdens on nursing homes and hospitals, cost reductions for the healthcare system, and the 
positive impacts of home healthcare on patients' families. While we acknowledge the importance of 
the home healthcare industry and related careers, establishing a home health aide business is 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor having a prospective impact in the field of home healthcare. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
See 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). Moreover, 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. 
In the end, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business 
and her future clients to impact the field , any other industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated 
that the work she proposes to undertake as an owner of her proposed home health aide business offers 
innovations that contribute to advancements in the healthcare industry or otherwise has broader 
implications for the home healthcare field. The economic, social, and healthcare benefits that the 
Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between her proposed business' home health aide work and those claimed benefits. 
Without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed work would impact the home healthcare 
industry more broadly or benefit the U.S. economy, 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. 
5 
Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of her 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 dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, and therefore, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issues of the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the second and third 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). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she 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. 
6