dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 04, 2024 In Re: 30470652 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse practitioner specializing in hospital infection control and bum injury care, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a 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 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 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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. The remaining issue to be determined on 
appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director determined, in part, that while the Petitioner's intention to work as a nurse practitioner 
in the United States has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order to establish her eligibility 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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 national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the individual's specific endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 
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. Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the 
national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of the Petitioner's work. Id. at 889. 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. 
The Petitioner, who was previously employed as a nurse practitioner in Brazil, intends to continue her 
work in the United States. She describes her endeavor in a professional plan submitted in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE), stating that the document will "highlight [the Petitioner's] potential 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
contribution to the United States as a qualified nursing practitioner." She further states that the 
professional plan will "address the current staffing shortage in ... Nurse Practitioners specialized in the 
burn care field and how [the Petitioner's] services will help bridge the gap in the U.S. market." The 
professional plan includes the following: 
[The Petitioner] is a talented professional with around 15 years of experience working in 
large healthcare organizations, with 12 years dedicated to treating patients with bum 
wounds. Serving the healthcare system, she led many projects requiring highly 
specialized technical and leadership skills. [The Petitioner's] impressive academic 
background and professional experience have allowed her to contribute to the hospitals' 
performance and patient well-being. She has worked through various improvements and 
adopted rigorous and effective infection control practices .... 
The skills and experience of [ the Petitioner] will allow her to develop a set of practices 
that will generate business and technical efficiency and, therefore, benefit the general 
economy of the United States. In addition, [the Petitioner] has remarkable knowledge and 
experience in applying nursing and infection control principles in health organizations, 
allowing them to ensure safety, efficiency, quality, and fast recovery for patients, 
especially those with bum wounds. 
The Petitioner's professional plan, as well as documentation evincing her extensive nursing experience 
and several letters of support lauding her skills and professionalism, relate not to the first Dhanasar 
prong addressing the national importance of a proposed endeavor, but to the second. The second prong 
addresses whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance a proposed endeavor and "shifts the focus 
from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. While this documentation speaks to 
the Petitioner's qualifications as a nurse practitioner, it does not address how her intention to work as 
a nurse practitioner in a hospital will have a national impact. 
Regarding the first Dhanasar prong, the Petitioner's appeal brief cites issues related to healthcare 
facility infections, stating the following (quoted as written): 
Here, the national importance and impact of my work become clear: even if I, a 
single nursing professional working in a hospital, can impact an entire community, or 
even the state or other states, if I professionally and correctly carry out prevention 
procedures to prevent the spread of infections in that hospital, thus preventing the 
spread of infectious diseases, protecting both the local population and the country. 
In addition, the Petitioner-in her brief and in cover letters included in the record-cites a variety of 
sources discussing nursing shortages in the United States and the importance of increasing professional 
representation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (also known collectively as 
STEM). The Petitioner outlines in her brief how her endeavor will offer "health solutions, 
employment, prosperity, and freedom" through the following (quoted as written): 
a. Infection Control Training Programs: Develop and implement comprehensive 
training programs for healthcare staff, focusing on the latest techniques and best 
practices in infection control. 
3 
b. Technology Integration: Introduce and integrate advanced technologies, such as 
UV disinfection robots and AI-driven predictive analytics, to monitor and prevent 
potential infection outbreaks. 
c. Policy and Procedure Overhaul: Review and revise existing infection control 
policies to align with the latest research and best practices. 
d. Continuous Monitoring and Feedback: Establish a system for continuous 
monitoring of infection rates and feedback mechanisms to ensure timely 
interventions. 
It's not too much to realize that for this I will need to employ several other professionals 
like me and from different fields as well, thus offering work, prosperity, and 
employment to the American economy. All of this is perfectly plausible and viable, 
but it all stars with my work as a nurse. 
The Petitioner also provides a general overview of the anticipated outcomes of her work: 
a. Efficiency and Productivity: Reduced hospital-acquired infections will lead to 
shorter hospital stays, faster patient turnover, and optimized use of hospital 
resources. 
b. Cost Savings: By preventing infections, healthcare institutes can avoid the high 
costs associated with treating such conditions, leading to significant savings in 
outpatient costs. 
c. Economic Benefits: The money saved can be reinvested in expanding healthcare 
facilities, purchasing advanced medical equipment, and hiring more staff. This 
reinvestment will stimulate the U.S. economy and create job opportunities in 
various sectors, from construction to medical research. 
The Petitioner outlines a broadly ambitious approach to her intended employment as a nurse 
practitioner at a hospital in the United States. However, she does not explain how her specific work 
as an individual nurse-and, ostensibly, as the eventual employer of other healthcare professionals­
will address a national talent shortage or affect the fields of infection control, bum treatment, or the 
healthcare industry. Her predictions for the outcomes of her work are presumptive because they are 
not supported by evidence specific to the Petitioner; they are not supplemented by documentation 
specifying what actions she will take or what influence she will exercise to bring those outcomes to 
fruition. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the following in her brief (quoted as written): 
My undertake is covering social, commercial, and governmental areas with my 
contribution throughout of development of the national healthcare ecosystem, generation 
of new jobs, employment of the American workforce, being a permanent pipeline for the 
professional American health market, avoiding waste by saving time, labor hours, 
optimizing and streamlining resources, normalizing procedures to FDA, DCD, WHO and 
U.S government compliance and roles thus providing more wealth, freedom and 
prosperity, in a multipurpose way, that is, at the same time in several U.S. places. 
4 
While such a massive endeavor to improve healthcare systems and create jobs in the United States has 
merit, neither the Petitioner's professional plan, letters of support, nor other documentation in the 
record specify how the Petitioner will actualize the vague and overarching concepts that she describes 
here. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. She has 
not done so here. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 at 376. 
While the Petitioner's description of her endeavor is aspirational in the breadth of its intended impact, 
she does not explain how her work will have a positive impact on entities outside of an immediate 
employer or any individuals to whom she intends to provide medical services. The Petitioner has not 
provided adequate information about how she will approach such an immense undertaking or any 
other explanation for how she will achieve an endeavor of this magnitude; the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that her endeavor is a realistic pursuit defined by distinct milestones or outcomes. The 
Petitioner has not shown that she has developed an endeavor with the potential to have national or 
global implications within a particular field. And without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's pursuits as a 
nurse practitioner reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Because the identified 
reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
her remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5