dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 16, 2024 InRe : 31676644 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician , 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish underlying eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, and also did not show that waiver of the 
job offer, and thus of the labor certification, is in the national interest because he did not establish that 
his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance; he is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor; and, on balance, that the waiver is beneficial. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
I 
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. 
Id. 
II. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability. 
The Petitioner states he is qualified for the EB-2 classification because he has the foreign equivalent 
to a U.S. advanced degree based on his academic record alone, although he also completed post­
graduation work in clinical cardiology at Brazil from 
January 2004 to January 2007, and has 14 years of experience in the field. The record contains 
evidence that the Petitioner was granted the title of physician (titulo de medico) and academic 
transcripts showing that he completed a six-year course of medicine at the 
Iin Brazil from January 1998 to December 2003. 
We further consulted the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's foreign 
education is comparable to any U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable resource 
concerning the U.S. equivalencies of foreign education. See generally American Association of 
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Electronic Database for Global Education, 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge (last visited June 24, 2024). The database indicates that the titulo de 
medico in Brazil is completed after six years of professional study in medicine and represents the 
attainment of a level of education comparable to a first professional degree in medicine in the United 
States, which is a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he 
qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we withdraw the Director's 
finding to the contrary. The sole remaining issue is whether he merits a national interest waiver. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner asserted that he has at least 14 years of experience as an owner and physician of a 
medical clinic and approximately one year of work as a technical director at a hospital in Brazil. The 
Petitioner also claimed that he is currently employed in the United States on a part-time basis as: 
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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
(1) a leadership course trainer; and (2) as the owner and director of an entity in Florida that prepares 
and repackages products to send to the warehouse of an online e-commerce company. For purposes 
of this National Interest Waiver (NIW) petition, the Petitioner seeks to work in the United States as an 
entrepreneur in the field of healthcare. According to the Petitioner, his proposed endeavor will be 
through an organization named B- LLC,2 which will specialize in offering health care advice and 
related services throughout the United States to "individuals and companies with specific needs by 
acting as a preventative health follow up in addition to correct orientation and referral to necessary 
professionals in case of illness." 
The Director denied the Petitioner's national interest waiver request, concluding that the Petitioner 
had not established the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor under the 
first prong of Dhanasar. With respect to national importance, the Director emphasized that the 
Petitioner had submitted a general business plan asserting that he would use the Florida organization 
named B- LLC to accomplish his proposed endeavor but had voluntarily dissolved B- LLC inl I 
2023 ( after the filing of this petition), calling into question the credibility and long-term viability of 
the endeavor. The Director further found that the Petitioner's claims that his organization of B- LLC 
in Florida as a vehicle through which he would accomplish the proposed endeavor were not sufficient 
to show he had an actual endeavor that has substantial merit and national importance. Finally, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he had satisfied the second and third prongs 
of Dhanasar. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. Id. 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner initially recounted his 
prior work in Brazil as a cardiologist at a clinic that he owned and then as a hospital medical director 
and provided letters from former colleagues and employers discussing his prior work in Brazil. The 
Petitioner stated that he organized B- LLC in Florida as a vehicle through which he would use his 
prior experience as a physician and as a medical director to provide health care advice to individuals 
or companies to ensure that patients receive appropriate follow up care across the United States. The 
Petitioner further claimed that his endeavor would directly contribute to the health of the United States 
and that it: (1) involves investment of approximately $1.3 million dollars; (2) will create 54 direct 
jobs and 270 indirect jobs; and (2) has a revenue projection of$4.3 million and will thus create federal, 
state, and local tax contribution of $854,000 during the first five years of operation. 
In his personal statement, the Petitioner claimed that he: 
intend[s] to continue using [his] expertise and knowledge, gained through [his] 19+ 
years of professional experience, to work as an Entrepreneur in the United States .... 
[ and] will do this by developing and expanding [his] own healthcare business in the 
nation, [B- LLC]. 
2 Names of limited liability companies such as this are withheld to protect the individual member's identity. 
3 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserted that health care providers and advisors are a critical part of the 
United States' economic growth and that professionals such as himself are needed to ensure the health 
of individuals in the United States, especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. As 
evidence of the prospective interest in his services, the Petitioner provided a letter from an individual 
who asserts that he is the chief executive officer (CEO) of an organization in Florida that currently 
provides healthcare related services, including concierge, telehealth, and medical tourism advice, to 
individuals in the United States and Brazil, and expressed an intent to partner with the Petitioner so 
that he also can provide its own clients with medical and technical advice. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided articles discussing the critical role of entrepreneurs in generating 
U.S. economic activity, including a 2023 U.S. Chamber of Commerce assessment of U.S. labor 
shortages and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U.S. labor force, and the lack of health 
care providers in the United States. He also included articles discussing the current U.S. 
administration's support for foreign-born entrepreneurs and an immigrant workforce as a means of 
stimulating and engaging the U.S. economy. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not include new evidence relating to the proposed endeavor, instead 
requesting that his previously provided evidence be considered as having satisfied the eligibility 
requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. 
First, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of providing follow up health care advice to people or 
corporations in the United States is vaguely described such that it is not possible to discern the nature 
of the actual endeavor. Although the stated goals of improving the health of people in the United 
States, generating jobs, adding to tax revenue, and improving the national and local community are 
favorable as a general matter, the Petitioner's evidence does not show how the proposed endeavor 
might accomplish his stated goals. For example, in support of his stated intent to provide healthcare 
consulting services to individuals and companies through his organization B- LLC, he provided a letter 
from the CEO of the Florida organization that expressed an intent to partner with the Petitioner once 
his NIW petition is approved. However, the CEO states that his own organization currently provides 
healthcare consulting services and does not explain what new or expanded services the Petitioner and 
B- LLC would provide. The articles that the Petitioner provided only discuss foreign born 
entrepreneurs and the lack of health care workers in the United States as a general matter, and do not 
address or show how the Petitioner's specific endeavor has substantial merit. Consequently, the 
Petitioner's evidence here is not sufficient to show that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Further, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner has taken actions with respect to the proposed endeavor 
that are inconsistent with his stated intent of accomplishing his plans via the Florida organization 
named B- LLC. Specifically, after organizing B- LLC in 2022 and filing the NIW petition, the 
Petitioner took active steps to voluntarily dissolve the entity in I I 2023. Although we 
acknowledge that he subsequently revoked the dissolution of the organization after the Director's RFE 
such that B- LLC is no longer dissolved, the Petitioner has not explained, either in response to the RFE 
or on appeal, why he chose to dissolve the organization while the NIW petition was still pending and 
after he claimed that B- LLC is the means through which he would implement the proposed endeavor. 
As a consequence, based on the Petitioner's vaguely expressed plans and lack of information regarding 
the actual endeavor, in addition to the inconsistent evidence and actions he has taken with respect to 
4 
the Florida organization through which he proposes to accomplish the endeavor, the evidence is not 
sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the substantial merit of his proposed 
endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver on this basis alone, and we need not consider 
whether it then has national importance. Id. at 889. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework requiring 
him to show that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he has not shown that he is eligible for 
and otherwise merits a national interest waiver. We therefore reserve his arguments relating to 
Director's additional determination that he also did not satisfy the national importance clause of the 
first prong, and the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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). 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5