dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 28, 2023 In Re: 28962835 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a physician and entrepreneur , seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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 attached 
to this EB-2 classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not establish that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional based upon her title of physician degree from Venezuela. The Director also concluded 
that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. The issues on appeal 
are whether the Petitioner has established the proposed endeavor's national importance, whether she 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and whether, on balance, a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
As to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states that she will work to promote breastfeeding. The 
Petitioner states that as part of this endeavor she will educate, train, and support mothers in 
breastfeeding; she will engage in the research, publication, and presentation of information regarding 
breastfeeding; and that she will establish a non-profit organization that will promote breastfeeding. 
In concluding that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's intent is to broadly impact the field by "foster[ing] the 
increased adoption of breastfeeding and healthy eating habits to improve childhood nutrition," but 
concluded that the evidence did not establish that the proposed endeavor stands to have an impact 
beyond the proposed organization itself The Director discussed the Petitioner's personal statement, 
the reports and articles submitted, and the letters of recommendation submitted, and concluded that 
these documents primarily describe the importance of breastfeeding in general and the problem of 
physician shortages in the United States, rather than establishing the importance of the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor. The Director also discussed the business plan and concluded that, while the 
organization may improve the welfare of its potential clients, the evidence did not demonstrate that 
the organization would enhance societal welfare on a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Director also noted that the business plan does not provide specific estimates for potential job 
creation or other financial projections. The Director concluded that the plan therefore did not establish 
the level of substantial positive economic effects contemplated by Matter ofDhanasar. The Director 
similarly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor nor that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States.2 
1 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). 
2 The Director did conclude that the Petitioner is well-positioned to educate mothers on breastfeeding, one aspect of the 
proposed endeavor. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner is not well-positioned to operate the proposed 
nonprofit organization or to conduct, publish, and present research. Because we agree with the Director's conclusions as 
to the national importance element of the first Dhanasar prong, and because, as we discuss below, this is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we need not further summarize the Director's decision as to the second and third prongs here. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's analysis of the first prong is contrary to precedent 
case decisions and the USCIS Policy Manual. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the Director did 
not consider the totality of the evidence in the record, did not sufficiently explain the reasons for the 
denial, and did not explain the record deficiencies in a manner that provided an opportunity for the 
Petitioner to rectify those deficiencies. The Petitioner claims that the Director failed to consider the 
"ample objective, documentary evidence" that demonstrates the national importance of the endeavor. 
The Petitioner specifically points to the articles submitted that discuss the benefits of breastfeeding, 
the shortage of physicians the United States, and the infant formula shortage and related initiatives 
from the U.S. government. Finally, the Petitioner claims that the endeavor does stand to have positive 
economic effects and that the Petitioner's personal statements contain "ample arguments supported by 
objective documentary evidence" which establish this claim. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Although the Petitioner claims that the Director did not sufficiently explain the basis for denial, upon 
de novo review we conclude that this claim is not supported by the record. Rather, the Director's 
decision cites to specific information in the record and includes findings that are well-supported by 
the language of Matter ofDhanasar. Similarly, as to the Petitioner's claim that the Director did not 
consider all of the evidence in the record, the Petitioner does not support this claim with sufficient 
specificity. The only specific example the Petitioner provides on appeal of evidence that the Director 
did not consider are the articles and evidence related to breastfeeding in general, physician shortages, 
and the infant formula shortage. But the articles and reports in the record were in fact discussed by 
the Director, with the Director concluding that they relate to the field in general and not to the 
Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. Additionally, we agree with the Director that in determining 
whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of 
the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national 
importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. 
at 889. Moreover, the Petitioner does not address this finding on appeal or explain how her specific 
endeavor would increase the practice of breastfeeding, reduce the physician shortage, or reduce the 
infant formula shortage at a level commensurate with national importance. 
We do note that the Director did not specifically discuss the Petitioner's statement that she will conduct 
research as part of her proposed endeavor and whether this helps establish the endeavor's national 
importance. Evidence of engaging in original research may help demonstrate an endeavor's national 
importance, as the findings of that research may be disseminated through the field and may result in a 
broad impact. See id. at 891-92. However, the Petitioner does not claim on appeal that her proposed 
endeavor involves research and does not assert that the Director erred by not discussing this aspect of 
her proposed endeavor. We therefore consider the issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 
3 
28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). 3 
The Director's decision reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's documentation consistent 
with our precedent decision in Matter of Dhanasar. On appeal, rather than specifically identifying 
any errors in law or fact in the decision, the Petitioner merely makes broad, general assertions that the 
Director did not properly analyze the evidence and that she has established eligibility. These 
assertions, however, are not supported by the record, do not overcome the basis for the denial, and are 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are 
not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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 the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Were we to consider on appeal the Petitioner's statement that she will engage in research as part of her endeavor, we 
would still conclude that this is not sufficient to establish the endeavor's national importance. Although the Petitioner 
states in her "Proposed Endeavor Statement" that her work will include research to identify why mothers stop 
breastfeeding, the record contains little more than this passing reference to research. The Petitioner submitted several 
documents in which she summarizes her endeavor, including an "Effort and Suggested Activities in the United States" 
statement, an initial personal statement, an updated personal statement, and a business plan for the nonprofit organization. 
The Petitioner does not elaborate on or further discuss conducting research as part of her proposed endeavor in these 
statements. The Petitioner does not explain what amount of her work would be devoted to research and the evidence in 
the record does not otherwise describe a research-based endeavor. Without further evidence as to the extent of research 
that the proposed endeavor would involve, or the specific research that the Petitioner intends to pursue, or its potential 
impact on the adoption and promotion of breastfeeding, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her 
endeavor based upon this claim that she will engage in research. 
4