dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 18, 2023 In Re: 28051485 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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, 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 established 
she was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated 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 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 because the Petitioner has not established that her endeavor has national 
importance and thus, does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
After a petitioner fust demonstrates qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification , they must 
then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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. 
The Director considered the Petitioner's claims under the three prongs of Dhanasar and determined 
that she only established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. Regarding national 
importance, the Director reviewed and analyzed the Petitioner 's claims including her business plan 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
with employment creation assertions, letters of support, and industry reports and articles and discussed 
their deficiencies. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief which generally reiterates the benefits of 
her profession, her qualifications, and the claimed economic impacts of her proposed medical clinic(s) 
and contends that she has established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. She does not, 
however, provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination. 
Therefore, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to this prong. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 
1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 2 Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding the two remaining 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2