dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 33376457 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 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 EB-2 immigrant 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 qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had 
not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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, 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. Our 
precedent, Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (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 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude the national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner established the substantial merit but not the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar. 2 The Petitioner's endeavor 
is to work as a physician specializing in "fetal medicine, general ultrasound, endometriosis 
diagnosis, and medical education to impact the field of health care in the U.S." 
The Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree as he obtained a title of physician (titulo de medico) from in 
Brazil. 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 his endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not offer any new evidence. Instead, the Petitioner claims that the 
Director misconstrued or misunderstood the evidence in the record and that the previously submitted 
or referenced industry articles, resources, and government initiatives demonstrate his endeavor's 
national importance. 
However, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." Id. The 
Petitioner contends that his endeavor has "global impact" because of the pressing need to treat 
endometriosis, as discussed in the web resources from http://www.womenshealth.gov. While the 
women's health resource articles demonstrate the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor and 
the importance of the field in which he intends to work in, they do not adequately demonstrate the 
endeavor's national importance. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to show that his solutions or 
methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the 
United States, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Although the 
Petitioner asserts that his techniques and procedures in the field of fetal medicine or 
obstetrics/gynecology (OB-GYN) has a potential for "groundbreaking advancements with the 
2 The Director also concluded that the Petitioner met the second prong of being well-positioned to advance his endeavor 
but did not establish that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third 
prong ofDhanasar. 
2 
potential to revolutionize healthcare practices globally," he has not supported his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
For instance, the reference letters in the record do not address the endeavor's specific impact or 
special methodologies attributable to the Petitioner. Instead, they generally praised his skills as a 
physician and referred to his past work experiences. The expert opinion letter from an assistant 
professor of medicine generally discusses the importance of the medical profession in the 
coronavirus pandemic era and the growing need to protect women's medical health, especially in the 
area of OB-GYN and fetal medicine, without addressing specific impact of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or his methodology. Although the opinion letter claims that the endeavor will "promote 
the health and well-being of women and their babies" and the Petitioner will "[share] solutions that 
will benefit the United states' health system which will improve the well-being of citizens and 
American society," it does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's "solutions" or 
the endeavor's impact extending beyond a particular employer or patients that he will serve as a 
physician. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. The Petitioner contends that the American Medical Association (AMA) Economic Impact Study 
corroborates that his endeavor "supports millions of jobs and contributes significantly to the U.S. 
economy." We acknowledge that the AMA study addresses how physicians contribute to generating 
economic activities, but it only provides a general overview on the importance of the medical 
profession and does not address the Petitioner's specific procedures or methodologies that would 
directly lead to "substantial positive economic effects." Any offer of goods or services has the 
potential to impact the economy; however, the record does not support the Petitioner's work as a 
physician or dissemination of his knowledge or skills3 would be on such a large scale that would 
benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that his endeavor directly supports the initiatives from the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in "enhancing healthcare quality, advancing 
scientific discovery, and strengthening global health efforts." But aside from this generalized claim, 
the Petitioner has not provided any specific information that the government has implemented or is 
interested in gaining his methodologies or solutions. Generalized conclusory statements that do not 
identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 17 5 6, 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 adjudications). 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated national importance of 
the proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third 
prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
3 In addition to working as a physician. the Petitioner indicated that he will be collaborating with small and large clinics 
and teach the next generation of physicians his knowledge and skills. 
3 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. 
4