dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 08, 2024 In Re: 31680899 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See section 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
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 the record did not establish that a 
waiver of the Petitioner's job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed the 
subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us as a combined motion to reopen and to reconsider. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
combined motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our decision, incorporated herein, we noted the Director's finding that the Petitioner established her 
eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced professional and agreed with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), reserving the remaining two prongs. Specifically, we concluded 
the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor, which is to promote 
breastfeeding by educating, training, and supporting mothers in breastfeeding; engaging in the 
research, publication, and presentation of information regarding breastfeeding; and establishing anon­
profit organization that will promote breastfeeding. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claimed that the Director did not consider all of the evidence relating to 
national importance, including articles and evidence in the record relating to the importance of 
breastfeeding in general and physician and infant formula shortages in the United States, and did not 
sufficiently explain the basis for denial. In our decision on appeal we summarized the Director's 
decision, highlighting the Director's analysis of the Petitioner's documents, and in our analysis we 
concluded that the Director had reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence in 
determining that, while she established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor, she had not 
demonstrated its national importance. In addition, we noted that the Director specifically considered 
the articles and evidence referenced by the Petitioner but found that these documents relate to the field 
at issue in general, rather than to the specific, proposed endeavor. We agreed with the Director's 
reasoning in support of this finding that in determining whether a proposed endeavor has national 
importance, the focus is not on the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an 
individual will work; but on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See 
id. at 889. We also pointed out that the Petitioner did not address this finding by the Director on appeal 
and did not 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 also concluded that while the Director did not discuss the part of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor that involves her engaging in research regarding breastfeeding, the Petitioner did 
not assert on appeal that the Director erred by not discussing this aspect of her proposed endeavor, and 
we therefore deemed the issue waived. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner states that our appeal decision neglected to address the 
Director's clear abuse of discretion and that we imposed standards and requirements not found or 
grounded in precedent law. The record does not support the Petitioner's asse1iions. As we wi 11 discuss 
in more detail, our prior decision provided de nova review of the record on appeal and determined the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor as contemplated by Dhanasar 
by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner asserts generally that we did not consider the evidence specified in the appellate brief 
and erred in our analysis by not engaging in a comprehensive review of the evidence. However, we 
reviewed the relevant evidence and arguments, including the Petitioner's assertions of errors by the 
Director, and sufficiently explained the deficiencies in the record in finding that Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, more specifically, the 
Petitioner asserts again that the Director did not analyze the articles, submitted in the record below, 
discussing the baby formula shortage, the need to educate mothers on continued breast feeding, and 
physician shortages. As discussed in our appeal decision and summarized above, the Director did 
analyze the submitted articles and explained why they do not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Director did not analyze and we did not consider her updated 
statement and updated proposed endeavor submitted to the Director. However, the Petitioner merely 
referenced her personal statements in her appeal brief and did not specify what content from the 
updated statement and proposed endeavor were not considered by the Director and how consideration 
of the information would establish the national importance of her endeavor. On motion, she specifies 
that we did not consider the part of her endeavor as it relates to the establishment of a nonprofit clinic. 
2 
However, the Director discussed the Petitioner's intent to open a non-profit and determined the 
Petitioner had not established that her company would enhance societal welfare on a level that would 
be considered national in scope. The Petitioner did not raise arguments regarding the Director's 
determination on this issue on appeal, and similarly on motion does not specify how the Director erred 
in the analysis as it relates to her clinic. 
The Petitioner then argues that it was "not accurate" for us to say in our decision that she did not 
discuss on appeal the research or investigative aspect of her proposed endeavor and that we erred by 
not analyzing the issue on appeal. The Petitioner then refers us to page 10 of her appeal brief. 
However, her appeal brief does not address her research on breastfeeding, and page 10 of the brief 
primarily addressed prong two of Dhanasar. As a result, the Petitioner did not identify where in her 
appeal she discussed her research or made assertions of error by the Director on this issue to support 
her claim that we erred in not addressing the issue on appeal. 
The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated we erred as amatter of law or pol icy in our prior decision 
or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time. 
Accordingly, she has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not asserted or established new facts relevant to our appellate decision 
that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Consequently, we have no 
basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision, and the combined motions will be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and her underlying 
petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3