dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 06, 2024 In Re: 28446257 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 Nebraska 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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, however, a doctoral degree is customarily required by the profession, a 
noncitizen must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies 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 has not met the Dhanasar framework and dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 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 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner listed his proposed profession as entrepreneur on the Form I-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, and stated he "plan[ned] to apply [his] expertise in medical 
knowledge to the ultimate benefit of the United States by focusing on expanding care across 
underserved population group," adding that he "intend[ s] to work with [ medically underserved 
population groups] spreading the knowledge regarding the safety of vaccines, the need to vaccinate, 
and the need to attend regular health check-ups." The Petitioner also indicated that he "intend[s] to 
volunteer his services as a health care professional to clinics providing health care" to these groups. 
In support of this endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement explaining that he was 
currently volunteering to support COVID-19 prevention, as well as serving as a mentor to medical 
assistants and medical technicians, concluding that his work "will affect vast spans ofU[ nited] S[tates] 
population groups via improved access to health care... [ and] will clearly be of substantial merit and 
national importance." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) in which they requested clarification as to the 
substantive nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, explaining that, because the Petitioner "did 
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). 
2 
not provide a detailed description of [his] proposed undertaking or venture," the Director was unable 
to "meaningfully determine whether [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor [satisfies] the Dhanasar 
framework." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a new professional plan stating that he was currently 
working as a medical assistant instructor at the I I training medical 
assistants, phlebotomy technicians, EKG technicians, and leading CPR courses, while also preparing 
to take the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) to obtain his medical license in 
the United States. According to this professional plan, the Petitioner planned "to provide a set of 
comprehensive integrative medical services to the American and immigrant population in the U[ nited] 
S[tates] regardless of their health insurance status," noting that his "knowledge of medicine and ability 
to offer comprehensive integrative services [ would allow] him to continue pursuing his endeavor as a 
doctor and generate a direct and positive impact on the well-being of the American people." The 
Petitioner's second professional plan provided details of the Petitioner's professional background and 
the importance of integrative medicine, explaining that "[i]ntegrative medicine is health care that uses 
all appropriate therapeutic approaches ... [including] a combination of multiple therapies such as 
acupuncture, massage therapy, chiropractic care, behavioral therapy, homeopathy and energy work to 
provide thorough treatment in all areas." The Petitioner also explained that he "plans to offer his 
integrative medicine services to a large number of people, mainly those with precarious access to 
healthcare," noting that "[he] will take into account the integral improvement of the patient including 
psychological treatment, psychosocial support, re-education, and establishment of a new life plan." 
His professional plan also discussed primary care physicians in the United States and concluded that 
"through the provision of his integrative medical services, [he would] address the medical issues 
prevailing in the country, thus contributing to the public health of the American population." The 
Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter, which concluded that that the Petitioner's endeavor 
of providing his services to patients has both substantial merit and national importance, as he will 
enable his patients to live more fulfilling lives, thereby strengthening the U.S. economy and prosperity, 
and improving societal welfare. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner 
qualifies for a national interest waiver because he did not meet the 3-prong Dhanasar framework. In 
regard to prong one, the Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance, as his professional plan seemed to 
only describe the work of a medical doctor, without providing sufficient details into the specific 
endeavor, and it was not clear whether he planned to work in a hospital, start his own clinic, or continue 
his work as an instructor. Without a specific explanation of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor, the Director concluded they could not meaningfully determine the substantial merit or 
national importance of the endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director erred in their conclusion that he is not 
eligible for the requested national interest waiver. In doing so, the Petitioner relies on the same 
arguments he previously put forth in response to the Director's RFE, and in the professional plan, 
asserting that the record contains "sufficient evidence" to establish eligibility. The Petitioner also 
submits a new statement, indicating that he is now working as "a research assistant" with a "team in 
the internal medicine and surgery research department of the [N]ew 
3 
[Y]ork," and reiterates that his professional plan establishes the impact and benefits of his endeavor.2 
Notably, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusion regarding the lack of clarity 
surrounding his specific endeavor. 
In his statement submitted on appeal, the Petitioner indicates that his current position as a research 
assistant "demonstrate[es his] great interest ... in acquiring the best knowledge about the population 
of the country and what are its main concerns and effects on health that they suffer."3 But, the 
Petitioner does not clarify his actual endeavor beyond noting again his "firm conviction of implanting 
a service of comprehensive health where people (natives or immigrants) benefit from low-cost health 
service, without the need for health insurance." Given his proposed job title of entrepreneur listed in 
the underlying Form I-140, it remains unclear if the Petitioner plans to, for example, operate his own 
clinic, work at a hospital, or continue teaching. 
Finally, although the Petitioner's statements in the record reflect his intention to generally provide 
services related to the medical field, we agree with the Director that the record does not sufficiently 
and consistently explain the Petitioner's specific endeavor to demonstrate the substantial merit and 
national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts that he will enable his patients 
to become healthy and contributing members of society, resulting in the strengthening of the U.S. 
economy and prosperity. However, generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific 
impact in the field have little probative value. See e.g., 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
2 As the Petitioner's newly claimed research assistant role was not part of the record before the Director, we will not 
consider it for the first time on appeal. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the 
benefit it is seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1 ); Matter of Katigbak 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner cannot materially change the proposed endeavor on appeal to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
3 While the 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," we note that the record contains inconsistent information 
relating to his current and past employment. 
I
Id. at 890. For example, beyond his own statement on appeal regarding his 
research position withl the Petitioner has not provided evidence corroborating his research position and 
the evidence contradicts this statement. In contrast to his contention that he is a research assistant with a "team in the 
internal medicine and surgery research department" and has "the opportunity to acquire the experience of working side by 
side with doctors of the[se] services (Internal Medicine/Surgery)," the letter from a representative of _____ 
dated just four months prior to the submission of this appeal, confirmed only that the Petitioner was "collaborating 
voluntarily since 2019 in different health campaigns in the application of primary prevention against hypertension, diabetes 
mellitus, and dyslipidemia in the population ... and [is] currently preparing for the USMLE exams." Likewise, in the 
Petitioner's professional plan and ex ert o inion letter, it states that the Petitioner has been "working as a [ m ]edical 
[ a ]ssistant i nstructor at the ' since 2020. The letter submitted from a representative 
from dated January 2023, indicates that the Petitioner has "work[ed] as a teacher in our 
institution... from Sept 2020 to present." Yet, in the initial filing of this petition (received May 24, 2021 ), the Petitioner 
provided an undated letter from a representative of I Iwhich confirms only that the 
Petitioner was "voluntarily giving weekly talks to people who are interested in taking [m]edical [a]ssistant course[s]." In 
addition, the Petitioner's professional background listed in his professional plans and on the U.S. Department of Labor 
ETA Form 750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, indicate that he was employed as a general doctor from January 
2014 through January 2016, and from February 2016 through November 2016; however, the record also indicates the 
Petitioner did not complete his degree in medicine until June 2016, and the Petitioner has not provided an explanation as 
to how he was able to serve as a general doctor prior to the completion of his medical degree. The Petitioner must resolve 
these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 
l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 
adjudications). 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. Similarly, the Petitioner's general assertions of working in the health care field do not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential patients to 
impact the medical field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Further, he 
has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the substantial merit or national 
importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent 
decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework, as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of EB-2 
classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 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. 
5