dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 7, 2024 In Re: 26374987 
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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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. 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 
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). 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
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. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner was awarded a bachelor's degree in nursing from~--------~ The 
Petitioner submitted translated copies of her diploma, certificates, and transcripts, as well as an 
educational evaluation indicating she has earned the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in nursing. 
The Director determined that the degree and transcript is insufficient evidence. As noted above, the 
regulation states that eligibility as an advanced degree professional may be shown if a petitioner is a 
member of the professions with a bachelor's degree and five years of post-degree experience in their 
specialty. Although the Director did not consider this evidence in their evaluation of the Petitioner's 
eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the record includes letters from 
the Petitioner's former employers to indicate that she was employed as a foll-time nurse for more than 
five years after completing her degree. We conclude that she has established her eligibility as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and thus for the EB-2 classification, and 
vacate the Director's decision in that regard. 
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 intensive care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), cardiology, cardiological postoperative, 
2 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-palt 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-palt-f-chapter-5. 
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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
clinical evaluation, and interpretation of imaging tests. The record contains a professional plan from 
the Petitioner detailing her expertise in the field of nursing, including her 15 years of experience in 
nursing that she will use to "positively influence the US healthcare and quality oflife of US individuals 
and society." Given the Petitioner's experience within these specialties, the Petitioner asserts that she 
will provide her services in hospitals, clinics, residential houses, or wherever there is a need to bring 
her nursing technique and skills which will impact the life and health of American citizens. The 
Petitioner also stated that her role as a nurse will enhance the health of individuals, lengthen life, and 
reduce the burdens of illness and disability in society. In addition, she stated her work indirectly 
generates new jobs since it allows for individuals to procure, obtain, and/or maintain employment due 
to good health. The Petitioner also stated that her expertise in nursing will help fill the shortage of 
nursing professionals 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. 
While the Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he concluded that the 
record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing specialized 
nursing services through her specific endeavor rather than the importance of nursing or the nursing 
industry or field. In Dhanasar, we 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. 
In addition, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes her experience, skills, and knowledge. The 
Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the 
prospective impact of working as a nurse rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we 
determined 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, the record does not show 
through supporting documentation how her specific nursing services stand to sufficiently extend 
beyond her prospective patients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Although the Petitioner asserts that her plan to continue her 
3 
nursing career could potentially have an impact on the proper and intended operation of the entire 
healthcare system, alleviating a severe and growing staffing deficit in the field of nursing, she does 
not substantiate her claims. The healthcare system is vast; however, the record does not establish how 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to continue her individual nursing career, among all other nurses 
in the United States continuing their careers, may have the type of "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 889-90. In tum, the record does 
not support the Petitioner's claim that her individual work as a nurse at one or more healthcare facilities 
will alleviate a severe and growing staffing deficit in the field of nursing. 
Likewise, the record does not establish how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a nurse at 
one or more healthcare facility at some unspecified location(s), may have "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or . . . other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Although the Petitioner indicated that providing her 
services will indirectly generate new jobs since healthy individuals can continue to work, the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence to show how treating her specific patients will create new 
employment opportunities rather than allow individuals to continue working in the positions they 
already had prior to treatment. In addition, it is not clear how the treatment of her patients will lead 
to a "significant potential" to employ U.S. workers. 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. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's appeal also reiterates her claim that her endeavor is nationally important due to the 
shortage of nurses in the United States and provides materials documenting the need for more workers 
in this field. However, she has not established how her individual nursing activities will resolve this 
shortage or impact it on a level rising to national importance. 5 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 of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. 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 of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 We further note that the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification 
process. Therefore, a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that 
workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter ofDlzanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
885; see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
4 
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. 
5