dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Assistant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 09, 2024 In Re: 3107 4004 
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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she qualifies for the requested benefit. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. They must 
then establish 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 ofDhanasar, 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. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
As explained by the Director, profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 
10l(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. 2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
The Director then determined that the position of medical assistant does not meet the definition of 
profession per section 10l(a)(32) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
On appeal, the Petitioner's brief is limited to her eligibility for a national interest waiver under 
Dhanasar. 3 As she does not address the issue of profession, we deem this ground to be waived.4 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that she has overcome the Director's conclusion on this issue and the 
appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. 
As this issue is dispositive, we need not reach the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her 
qualification for a national interest waiver. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and evidence 
submitted on appeal and agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established 
that the broader implications of her proposed endeavor as a medical assistant would sufficiently rise 
to the level of national importance contemplated under Dhanasar. We recognize that the Petitioner 
has provided evidence establishing the importance of the medical field, and the work of medical 
assistants in general, yet 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." Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889. Likewise, 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. Here too, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her current and prospective employers and/or patients 
to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
For the above reasons, 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 reasons for denial are 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the remaining Dhanasar's 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 ofL-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. 
2 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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
3 We acknowledge that on page six of the Fonn T-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
"erred in finding that the Petitioner is not an Alien with Advanced Degree." However, the Director did conclude she holds 
an advanced degree, but rather was not a member of the professions as the occupation of medical assistant does not require 
a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent. Section IOl(a)(32) of the Act; 8 CFR § 204.5(k)(2). By 
presenting only a generalized statement of error without explaining the specific aspects she considered to be incorrect, the 
Petitioner failed to identify the basis for contesting this requirement on appeal. See Matter of Pougatchev, 28 T&N Dec. 
719, 729 (BIA 2023) ( concluding issues that are not meaningfully appealed are waived). 
4 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012). 
2