dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mental Health

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10432798 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 9, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mental health organization, seeks second preference immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary, a group facilitator and case manager, 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 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. On motion to reopen, the Director affirmed the denial, specifically 
that the record did not establish that "the [B]eneficiary's proposed endeavor has national importance 
or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to grant a national interest waiver." 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their 
equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, 
or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, 
cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an 
employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the 
United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: ( 1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. Specifically, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed 
endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. 
On motion to reopen, the Director concluded that "the benefit [provided by the Beneficiary as a group 
facilitator and case manager] to each individual client/member [ of the petitioning mental health 
organization] does not represent a broad enhancement to societal welfare based on the evidence 
submitted." The Director further observed that the record "did not establish the importance of the 
[petitioning mental health organization], itself: to the nation as a whole or the field of drug addiction 
and mental illness counseling." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that an article titled 'The Impact of Substance Use Disorders on 
Families and Children: From Theory to Practice," published in Social Work Public Health in 2013 
satisfies the first Dhanasar prong. Specifically, the Petitioner directs our attention to the article's 
statement, as follows: 
Each family and each family member is uniquely affected by the individual using 
substances including but not limited to having unmet developmental needs, impaired 
attachment, economic hardship, legal problems, emotional distress, and sometimes 
violence being perpetrated against him or her. For children, there is also an increased 
risk of developing an SUD themselves. 
We recognize that the benefit provided by the Beneficiary as a group facilitator and case manager to 
each individual client also provides a benefit to the family members of the clients who receive the 
mental health care. However, the record does not establish whether, beyond the benefits provided to 
the clients and their family members, the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader 
implications rising to the level of having national importance or whether it would offer possible 
substantial positive economic effects to at least a region of the United States. 
The Petitioner also submits on appeal an excerpt from the Department of Justice's National Drug 
Intelligence Center's 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment and an accompanying two-page 
summary sheet, indicating that "[t]he estimated economic cost of illicit drug use to society for 2007 
was more than $193 billion." The record does not establish the estimated economic cost of illicit drug 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
use to society during a period more recent than 2007. Furthermore, the record does not establish the 
estimated economic cost of illicit drug use to a specific region of the United States or, more 
specifically, the region in which the Beneficiary would work, and in contrast the possible substantial 
positive economic effects the endeavor would offer to that region. To the extent that the estimated 
economic cost of illicit drug use to society in 2007 is informative, the threat assessment excerpt 
explains that the majority of that economic cost, $120 billion in lost productivity, "generally occurs 
through the incapacitation of individuals, either by reduced motivation or by confinement in residential 
treatment programs, hospitals, or prisons." 
The Petitioner presents a conflicting assertion regarding how the threat assessment and summary sheet 
satisfy the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner asserts the following: 
[T]he impact [ of the Beneficiary's mental health services] goes way beyond each 
individual member of [the Petitioner's clients]. In addition the economy is helped 
every time a substance abuser is sent back to work as a productive member of the 
economy. Every substance abuser who is out of work because of addiction ... costs 
the economy in lost wages, and increased medical costs which in many cases are being 
picked up by the taxpayers, since in all likelihood abusers are not insured if they are 
not employed. 
In summary, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's services help the economy by sending a 
recovering substance abuser back to work as a productive member of the economy, but those services 
also are detrimental to society because taxpayers pay for the medical costs of treating a substance 
abuser back to work. Regardless of whether the Petitioner asserts mental healthcare is beneficial or 
detrimental to society, the threat assessment and summary sheet report the estimated economic cost of 
providing substance abuse treatment to rehabilitate workers; they do not establish the estimated 
economic benefit of providing treatment, such as the estimated cost of substance abuse if rehabilitation 
were not provided, in order to assess the benefit of those services. Considered as a whole, the threat 
assessment excerpt and summary sheet do not establish whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor 
stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or whether it 
would offer possible substantial positive economic effects to at least a region of the United States. 
Next, the Petitioner submits an excerpt from a National Institute on Drug Abuse' s survey on 
nationwide trends on substance use, which observes that "9.4 percent of ... Americans aged 12 or 
older ... had used an illicit drug in the past month [in 2013]," compared to "8.3 percent in 2002," 
indicating an increase between 2002 and 2013. The excerpt is silent on trends between 2013 and the 
petition filing date. The excerpt also observes that, although "an estimated 22. 7 million Americans 
... needed treatment for a problem related to drugs or alcohol, ... only about 2.5 million people ... 
received treatment at a specialty facility." The survey excerpt mischaracterizes the figures in terms of 
the respective proportions of the overall population (8.6 and 0.9 percent, respectively); however, the 
appropriate ratio is that only 11 percent (2.5 million out of 22.7 million) of Americans who need 
treatment receive it at a specialty facility. The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record 
does not support the conclusion, that the treatment gap among substance abusing Americans in 2013 
establish whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to 
the level of having national importance or whether it would offer possible substantial positive 
economic effects to at least a region of the United States. 
4 
The Petitioner also submits on appeal a copy of the written testimony provided by witnesses from the 
Department of Health and Human Services to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions in 201 7. The testimony asserts that the Department of Health and Human Services "has 
made the [ opioid] crisis a top clinical priority and is committed to using [its] foll expertise and 
resources to combat the epidemic." The testimony asserts that there is "a lack of health system and 
healthcare provider capacity to identify and engage individuals, and provide them with high-quality, 
evidence-based opioid addiction treatment." The Petitioner does not assert on appeal, and the record 
does not support the conclusion, that the lack of healthcare provider capacity to identify and engage 
individuals, and provide them with high-quality, evidence-based opioid addiction treatment 
establishes whether the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to have broader implications rising to 
the level of having national importance or whether it would offer possible substantial positive 
economic effects to at least a region of the United States. 
Next, the Petitioner submits on appeal a research project proposal from the Beneficiary, dated 
November 2019, after the petition filing date and, moreover, after the Director's decision on the motion 
to reopen. 3 A petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1978). The research project proposal submitted for the first time on appeal, dated after 
the petition filing date, presents a set of facts that did not exist at the time of filing and, therefore, may 
not establish eligibility. Id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, in terms of its potential prospective impact, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. We 
reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the requirements of the second or third 
Dhanasar prongs. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Petitioner also submitted on appeal a two-page letter from the Beneficiary and two employment confirmation letters. 
However, the letters address whether the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
with sufficient work experience, which are not issues on appeal. The letters do not address the first and third Dlzanasar 
prongs, which are the issues on appeal. Accordingly, we need not discuss the letters further. 
5