dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 12, 2024 In Re: 28541613 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical professional, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be 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 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
884. Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar 
prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that he is a general practitioner with nine years of experience in a "problem­
solving capacity both in the emergency area and in the outpatient and hospitalization areas." He states 
that his proposed endeavor is to "work as a primary care clinician and emergency consultant" in health 
professional shortage areas. 4 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education and experience, his resume, a 
personal statement, and a professional plan describing his claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. He also submitted recommendation and support letters, an expert opinion letter, and articles 
and industry reports describing a shortage of healthcare professionals in the United States. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated professional plan dated December 
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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
3 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree awarded in 2012. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
4 At the outset we note that Petitioner does not appear to be a licensed physician in the United States. Although the 
Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to provide patient care, "specifically in low-income population and medically 
underserved areas inside the state of Florida," the record does not include evidence that the Petitioner is a licensed 
healthcare professional in Florida. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). (12). 
2 
2022, a second expert opinion, evidence of his certifications as a registered medical assistant and 
surgical assistant, and evidence demonstrating that Florida has a shortage of healthcare professionals. 
In his updated personal statement, the Petitioner outlines his eligibility for a "physician national 
interest waiver." He states that he "agrees to work foll-time in a clinical practice, with a term of 
service of 5 years," and "will provide services either in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA), 
a Health Care Limited Access Area (MUA), or Veterans Affairs facility, or for specialists in a 
Physician Shortage Area (PSA)." 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
However, he concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance his 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 the 
labor certification. The Director determined that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor will have broader implications in the field of medical education, practice or 
research. The Director also noted that the Petitioner's December 2022 professional plan appeared to 
indicate that he is seeking eligibility as a physician national interest waiver, although the initial 
evidence submitted with the petition did not request this designation. 5 The Director cited Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998), stating that "a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition that has already been filed." 
Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well-positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor. He noted that the Petitioner's certifications as a registered medical 
assistant and surgical assistant "do not establish [that he] has made progress toward working as a 
general practice physician, which has different education and licensure requirements." The Director 
farther concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated national interest factors such as the 
impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of his prospective contributions to the United States, 
an urgent national interest in his contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that his self­
employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director did not consider critical evidence. 
In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this 
evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he merits a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
5 Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that a waiver of the job offer requirement shall be afforded to a physician 
who meets several conditions. including that a Federal agency or a state department of public health has determined that 
his work is in the public interest. 
3 
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." See Id. In Dhanasar, we farther 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. 
On appeal, to support the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
references the evidence he submitted in response to the RFE. Specifically, the Petitioner states that 
his December 2022 professional plan, the expert opinion letter from I I and articles 
addressing the shortage of healthcare professionals as an issue of national concern establish that his 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
Although the Petitioner states that his professional plan includes a detailed description of his proposed 
endeavor, we disagree. The Petitioner's professional plan includes several sections discussing his 
education, experience, professional skills, certifications, and values. He also includes sections 
describing the profession of doctor generally, the shortage of doctors in the United States, employment 
and wage statistics for physicians, and other statistics and demographics of physicians in the United 
States, such as languages spoken other than English. The only section of the Petitioner's professional 
plan that addresses what he plans to do in the United States is titled "Physician National Interest 
Waiver." As noted above, in this section the Petitioner states his intention to work foll-time in a 
clinical practice and to provide services in a HPSA, MUA, PSA, or for the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs. 
As indicated by the Director, the instant petition does not indicate that the Petitioner is seeking a 
physician national interest waiver under Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. On appeal the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director "erroneously applied the special 'physicians' national interest waiver legal 
standard to the present petition, rather than applying the framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director properly analyzed the evidence 
in the record under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner also references an expert opinion prepared by 
We 
acknowledge that the expert opinion includes an analysis of the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. In his analysis I I states generally that the Petitioner "will contribute to the 
medical field ... alleviat[ing] the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic ... and provid[ing] medical 
treatments for American patients." However, I ldoes not discuss any details of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by 
the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the 
submission of expert opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory 
4 
opinion is of little probative value as it does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor and why it would have national importance. I I does not elaborate on 
how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective impact on the United States, 
including the national or global implications on patient care, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
the positive economic effects. Rather, his opinion is general in nature, concluding that, the Petitioner 
"is an established professional in an area of substantial merit and national importance" without 
providing a substantive analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the broader implications of his proposed endeavor are evidenced 
by addressing health professional shortage areas, improving access to healthcare, meeting the needs 
of high-risk populations, having an economic impact in economically depressed areas, promoting 
overall public health, and a significant potential to employ U.S. workers. However, the Petitioner does 
not provide a business plan to describe how he intends to offer his services. The Petitioner's personal 
statements are not specific or detailed enough for us to assess the potential prospective impact of it in 
the abstract, without considering the specific ways in which the Petitioner intends to implement this 
goal. "In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficiary 
will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ( emphasis added). 
The Petitioner claims that the denial is deficient because the Director did not consider the entirety of 
the evidence in the record. While we agree that an adjudicator should consider the relevant evidence 
in the record, the Petitioner does not sufficiently support his claim that there was relevant evidence 
that the Director did not consider. The Petitioner does not cite to or describe which specific evidence 
was not given consideration. We note that the decision discusses each of the claimed pieces of 
evidence the Petitioner lists in his brief. Nevertheless, we address them again herein. 
The Petitioner continues to rely upon the asserted merits of the services he will provide, his personal 
and professional qualities and achievements, and the general shortage of healthcare professionals. 
However, as set forth above, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's 
national importance. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and farther 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
6 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above. the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance his 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. On appeal, the Petitioner references 
the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response. The Director fully addressed the 
previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the first and third 
Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish 
that he meets all of the three Dhmwsar prongs. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6