dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 08, 2025 In Re: 35646179 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 
as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional 
ability, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. 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. Id. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that 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 
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: 
• 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced 
degree professional, but did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a nurse with experience working in the intensive care unit 
(ICU) and experience providing intensive care therapy for the neonatal, infant, and adult critical patient 
care. In her initial filing, the Petitioner generally asserted that she intended to use her skills and 
expertise to work in the health care industry in the United States. In support of her endeavor, she 
submitted an expert opinion letter and multiple articles, industry reports, and fact sheets discussing the 
nursing industry, the growing cost of healthcare in the United States, as well as the shortage of nurses 
and health care professionals in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner submitted letters of 
recommendation from former colleagues and a former patient attesting to her skills in the ICU, 
including her ability to provide exceptional patient care. 
Subsequently, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting more information 
pertaining to her specific proposed endeavor, the Petitioner submitted a newly created five-year 
business plan for a home health care services company, indicating she intended to serve as the 
company's lead consultant. According to the Petitioner, her company will operate with a "deep 
commitment to enhancing the quality of life for senior citizens and postoperative patients through 
exceptional home care services." To ensure individualized care, she intended to conduct in-depth 
interviews with prospective clients to create a specific care plan tailored to their medical and personal 
needs. According to her business plan, the company plans to target its services to postoperative 
patients to include medication monitoring, collection of blood and other fluids, analyzing patients vital 
signs, wound dressing, and other necessary care. In addition, the company will also target individuals 
recovering from work-place injuries as well as patients battling illnesses, with a goal or improving 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
patient care, reducing hospital stays, hospital infections, and ensuring patient safety. The Petitioner 
also stated that she intends to provide training, lectures, and mentorship to other professionals in the 
field. In addition to the business plan, the Petitioner also resubmitted the expert opinion letter, along 
with newly issued letters of recommendation and additional industry articles discussing the nursing 
industry and future projections relating to the health care industry. 2 
After acknowledging the submission of the new evidence, including the business plan, the Director 
denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of operating a home healthcare 
services company was substantially meritorious, but the record did not establish its national 
importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the record did not support the Petitioner's assertions that her endeavor would result in broader 
implications to the field or result in national or global implications at a level commensurate with 
national importance. And the Director determined that the record also did not establish that her 
company had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive 
economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 890. Accordingly, the Director 
concluded that, because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she was not eligible for the requested national interest 
waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred by not making a determination as to whether 
she satisfied the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. However, because the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs served no meaningful purpose. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (confirming that "agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach."). 
Additionally, in regard to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director applied a higher burden of proof in their evaluation of the evidence; however, the Petitioner 
does not explain how the Director applied a higher burden of proof beyond a general disagreement 
with the Director's conclusions. The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with 
the means to remedy what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within 
a decision in a previous proceeding. 3 By presenting only general disagreement with the Director's 
evaluation of the evidence, without identifying the specific aspects of the denial she considers to be 
incorrect, the Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify the basis for her appeal. 4 Nonetheless, for 
the reasons discussed below, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that she has not 
established the national importance of her endeavor. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
4 Matter of Valencia, 19 I&NDec. 354, 354-55 (BIA 1986). 
3 
1989). Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with Director's evaluation of the evidence, and 
conclude it does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor of operating a home health care business has national importance as contemplated under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
In Dhanasar, we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" resulting from the proposed endeavor, noting 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. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the importance of the home health care industry in 
establishing the national importance of her endeavor, asserting that "it is clear that home care services 
meet the national importance standard." She also contends that her endeavor is nationally important 
given the prospective benefits offered from the home health care industry including providing services 
to an aging population, offering a more cost-effective health care alternative, improving health 
outcomes for home patients, and increasing access to health care in rural and underserved areas. Yet, 
while the articles and reports the Petitioner cites in support of these assertions establish that home 
health care may result in these benefits, these benefits relate to the substantial merit and importance 
of the field rather than the broader implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. The reports and 
articles do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or explain how her endeavor will be of 
national importance or otherwise lead to broader implications within the field. As mentioned above, 
when determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we focus on the Petitioner's 
"specific endeavor," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession. Id. at 889 
Moreover, while the Petitioner claims that the federal policies, including Medicare and Medicaid 
prioritize home care as cost-effective solutions, she has not shown how her endeavor would 
meaningfully impact these policies. While the Petitioner's endeavor may align with these policies, 
this relates more to the substantial merit of her endeavor rather than its prospective impact. She has 
not shown, for example how any benefits she is able to provide her prospective clients would impact 
the field or these policies more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Generalized 
conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 
1756, 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). In the same way teaching activities 
proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM 
education, the Petitioner's endeavor would not have broader implications in the field. Dhanasar at 
893. 
We also reviewed the expert opinion letter in the record and conclude it provides little additional 
probative value in establishing the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. First, 
the letter does not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor of operating her home health 
care company. In fact, a significant portion of the expert opinion letter is focused on the importance 
4 
of the home health care industry without discussing how the Petitioner's company may impact the 
industry. Instead, the expert states that their evaluation was based on "their evaluation of the 
Petitioner's CV, academic credentials, and reference letters." Importantly, however, a petitioner's 
expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N 
Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony 
based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content of the 
expert opinion letter lacks relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects contemplated in 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. On appeal, the Petitioner relies on her assertions that small businesses and 
entrepreneurs heavily impact the success of the U.S. economy; however, she does not explain how her 
specific endeavor will result in substantial economic effects. Although any basic economic activity 
has the potential to positively impact a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the 
economic activity directly resulting from her company and its operations would rise to the level of 
national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. According to the Petitioner's business plan, she 
intends to begin her company's operations in I I Massachusetts, and subsequently expand 
operations to two more offices in New Jersey and Idaho by the fifth year of operations. However, the 
Petitioner has not explained how her company's operations will impact these areas of operation. 
And the Petitioner's projected employment and revenue also do not establish that her company will 
result in substantial economic effects. According to her business plan, she intends to serve as the 
company's lead consultant, and plans to employ 4 additional employees during the first year of 
operation, expanding to a total of 19 employees by the fifth year of operation. The business plan 
indicates that these employees will include registered nurses, medical directors, operations managers, 
and nursing assistants, among other positions, accounting for an annual payroll expense of $910,650 
by the company's fifth year of operation. The business plan also indicates that her company would 
result in total sales of more than $2,028,312 in that same time period. However, the business plan 
does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these employment projections, and, beyond 
providing an anticipated cost of services, the business plan also do not explain the basis for the 
financial projections. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that she only needs to establish the 
"prospective" economic benefits of her endeavor; however, without an explanation of the basis for the 
projections, the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported these projections. And, even if the company's 
revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained and supported, they do not establish 
that her company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance contemplated in 
Dhanasar. 
5 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs as well as a determination as to whether the Petitioner has met 
the requirements of EB-2 classification. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25; 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. 
6