dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 15, 2024 In Re: 30910526 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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 while the record did 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of substantial merit, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the endeavor was nationally important, that the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and labor certification. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 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: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• 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 as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner wrote in her definitive 
statement that she intends to open the a a primary care clinic and research 
institute, as her proposed endeavor. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit. Upon a de 
novo review of the record, we agree. Nevertheless, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the 
endeavor is of national importance. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements." An appeal must specifically identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 
l 03.3(a)(l )(v). Although the Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest waiver, she does not specify, as required, how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work will contribute to the "overall well-being and 
prosperity" of U.S. residents "by providing critical medical supplies and essential healthcare services." 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. 2 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The 
Petitioner's plans to open a primary care clinic similarly lack a broad impact on the medical field, as 
it would serve only individual patients. We observe that the evidence provided does not demonstrate 
otherwise. For example, the articles submitted concern primary care in the U.S., but they do not 
specifically address her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's resume, degree, and educational 
certificates, speak to the Petitioner's education and work history. Finally, the incorporation 
documentation shows that the Petitioner has registered the business with the state and federal 
governments. 3 There is nothing in the evidence to demonstrate that the clinic's service of individual 
patients will impact the field more broadly in a way that implicates national importance. 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not 
adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 21 
employees in year five, with a total of $5,525,025 in wages paid out over five years. She also projected 
generating $900,727 in taxes over those initial five years. However, the plan does not explain how 
these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does 
the record contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections. The preponderance 
of the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably 
true, where the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details 
detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan. 
Furthermore, even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record 
lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The Petitioner's appeal 
brief states that the proposed endeavor will contribute "to the broader federal efforts to stimulate local 
economies," and that the projected tax payments are "significant contributions to federal revenue." 
Yet the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that her clinic will result 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 We note that in response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted several investor and patient intent 
letters. However, all the letters were dated after the filing of the petition. 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). 
3 
in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record does not illustrate how 
creating 21 jobs and generating $900,727 in taxes over five years, as projected in the business plan, 
would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner 
must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is 
of national importance. 
We observe that the business plan mentions that in addition to providing primary care to patients, the 
clinic intends to develop research and clinical trials on women's health and family medicine. Yet the 
plan provides little further detail to demonstrate that this research would be of national importance. It 
states that the Petitioner intends to engage patients to volunteer in these trials, speaks generally about 
was a clinical trial is, and briefly details the aim of one particular trial (that the Petitioner does not 
have any apparent role in). The Petitioner provides no further evidence on the clinic's plans in regards 
to clinical trials or research. The record does not contain sufficient detail to establish that this function 
would be on par with national importance. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, and therefore does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's 
proposed endeavor is not nationally important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we 
find that the record does not establish that her proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her 
clientele to affect the region or nation more broadly. 26 l&N Dec. at 893. The Petitioner has not 
shown that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Thus, the 
Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4