dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 29, 2024 In Re: 29042024 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 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. § 1153(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. 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. 
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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 3 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&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 discretion4, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Advanced Degree 
While the Director concluded that the Petitioner established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advance degree, we disagree. 
The record contains copies of the Petitioner's transcripts and bachelor's degree in nursing from the
I Iin Brazil. 5 The record also contains a copy of the Petitioner's 
certificate in occupational nursing from the I Iin Brazil and an 
evaluation of education and work experience from a senior evaluator with GEO Credential Services, 
concluding that the combination of the Petitioner's foreign bachelor's degree and "5 years of 
qualifying experience" is equivalent to a U.S. master's degree in nursing. Here, the evaluator relied 
on the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, rather than letters from current or former employers as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Accordingly, the evaluation holds little probative 
value in this matter. We may, in our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as 
an advisory opinion. Matter ofSea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give 
less weight to that evaluation. 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
5 We note that the transcripts do not confirm the Petitioner's completion of the final semester, as the transcripts only 
indicate the Petitioner's enrollment status for her final courses. The Petitioner should provide final transcripts in any future 
filing. 
2 
The Petitioner also submitted three employment letters confirming her employment in the following 
positions between 2014 and 2019: (1) Nurse with '------------,-----------------1 
from February 2014 through April 2014; (2) Nurse on Duty with,__ _________ ----.-__ 
Ifrom November 17, 2014 to November 27, 2019; and (3) Nursing Manager with 
I Ifrom April 2016 to August 2019. However, none of the letters identified whether 
her employment was full-time or part-time. Although the Petitioner attested that she worked in two 
forty-hours-per-week positions from April 2016 to August 2019 (as Nurse on Dut, withl I
I land Nursing Manager withl j on the Form ETA 
750 Part B, Application for Alien Employment Certification, without more detailed information and 
corroboration from the Petitioner's employers, the record does not sufficiently show that she acquired 
five years of full-time, progressive experience in the field following the completion of her foreign 
bachelor's degree. Accordingly, the record does not establish the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced 
degree professional. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The Petitioner plans to work in the United States as a nurse to provide specialized care with a specific 
focus on hyperbaric oxygen therapy, nursing management, intensive care unit (ICU) nursing, and 
occupational nursing. The record contains a professional plan from the Petitioner detailing her 
expertise in the field of nursing, including her knowledge of the "most modem strategies and 
techniques of nursing" that she will use "to stimulate exponential growth to organizations located in 
the United States." Given the Petitioner's experience within these specialties, the Petitioner asserts 
that she will "fulfill the gap of Nursing professionals in several healthcare organizations located in 
the United States [and] enable both hospitals and private entities to improve their patient care 
processes ... " The Petitioner also contends that, through her nursing positions in the U.S., she will 
"optimize patient care solutions, reduce costs, increase productivity, enhance the flow of patients and 
treatments ... [and] contribute toward the advance and optimization of the U.S. health care industry . 
. . " In the initial filing, and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
also submitted multiple reference letters from former colleagues and doctors attesting to her ability to 
work in these nursing areas, while also positively impacting her employers' training and the 
standardization of processes, which the Petitioner would rely upon in order to further her proposed 
endeavor. 6 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor will "create a significant economic impact, or broadly 
enhance societal welfare," and therefore the proposed endeavor did not have substantial merit. We 
disagree and withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. An endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Dhanasar at 889. The Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of the 
6 While we may not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. When USCTS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be 
required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence 
the Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 
976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 
984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
3 
characterization of her proposed endeavor in nursing, which falls within the range of areas (health) we 
concluded could demonstrate endeavors of substantial merit. So, the record supports the substantial 
merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
However, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. We note that the record contains reference to several industry 
reports detailing the critical importance of the nursing field in supporting the U.S. healthcare industry, 
the growing gap between the demand for nurses and the availability of qualified nurses in the U.S.­
including within the hyperbaric oxygen therapy field-as well evidence of U.S. congressional interest 
aimed at both bolstering nursing education in the U.S. and addressing an increasing nursing shortage. 
While we acknowledge that the nursing field is of great national importance, in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The record contains letters of support from the Petitioner's past colleagues, including specialized 
doctors attesting to her expertise in the fields of hyperbaric oxygen therapy and nurse management. 
In particular, one former colleague who worked with the Petitioner commended her "significant 
impac[t] on the results of the hospital where she worked," which included improving services, 
organizing training, and issuing advice on standardization processes for the hospital. The record also 
contains two expert opinion letters evaluating the Petitioner's prior experience, and discussing the 
significant shortage for nurses in the United States-exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic-and 
the growing gap between the demand for nurses and availability of qualified nurses in the U.S. 
While the letters of support and expert opinions attest to the Petitioner's immediate impact to her 
former employers and patients, including her role in training and developing nursing protocols as a 
nurse manager with .__________ __. and her mastery of "the most extensive nursing 
techniques," they do not detail how the Petitioner's experience would impact the nursing field beyond 
her immediate patients, co-workers, and employers. Moreover, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner developed any of the trainings she organized and provided to her colleagues, nor is there 
any indication that this training was provided to additional nurses other than those employed with her 
employer. While it is true that Dhanasar's analytical framework "seek[s] to avoid overemphasis on 
the geographic breadth of an endeavor," a petitioner should still establish the "broader implications" 
attributable to their proposed endeavor. Dhanasar at 884-885. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's reliance on her experience and prior career accomplishments in Brazil do 
not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. A petitioner's expertise and record of 
success in previous positions 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 the proposed work. 
The Petitioner's reliance on the nursing shortage to establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor is also misplaced. The national interest waiver is not intended to address labor shortages. 
As the Petitioner has identified in the record, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Schedule A 
designation of nurses under its regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.16 allows U.S. employers to petition for 
noncitizen workers without first following the regulatory steps to test the labor market prior to filing 
4 
a permanent labor certification. See 20 C.F .R. § 656.17. Filing a permanent labor certification under 
Schedule A requires a job offer from a U.S. employer, as the recognized benefit is to that of the 
employer, not necessarily to a broader U.S. interest. As such, the availability of Schedule A to the 
nursing profession does not establish a nursing endeavor is of national importance. In addition, we 
note that although the expert opinion letters also address the growing nursing shortage, they do not 
explain how the Petitioner's endeavor will ameliorate this shortage. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we 
similarly conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her employer(s), co-workers, and patients to impact the industry more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Nor has she shown that the particular work 
she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in nursing or 
healthcare or otherwise has broader implications for nursing or healthcare. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future 
work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the reasons stated above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As explained, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner has demonstrated that she 
is an advanced degree professional. Further, because 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. See INS v 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); 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). We also reserve a determination as to the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
underlying immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. Id. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5