dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 33102891 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a clinical nurse specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification 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 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 though the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 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 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. 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. 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 discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, 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 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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
According to the Petitioner's statement provided with the initial filing, she is a "dedicated nursing 
professional with 10 years of experience in providing compassionate patient care to individuals in 
need for care related to their physical and mental well-being in supportive settings." She intends to 
"continue using [her] expertise and knowledge" and "by developing and expanding [her] own 
business" based in California. Her company is a home health services firm that will provide home 
care registered nurse services, home care licensed vocational and practical nurse services, and home 
care certified nursing assistants. Through her business she intends to help close the gap in nursing 
health services between "communities' need for at-home treatment and actual delivery of health 
services." The Petitioner indicates that her company's primary target market will be HUB (historically 
underntilized business) zones in California, as designated by the U.S. Small Business Administration. 
Her aim is to "generate jobs for U.S. workers in these underserved areas" and "expand their 
professional possibilities within the healthcare sector" which will "improve wages and working 
conditions for American citizens, and also boost investment and economic development throughout 
such local communities." The Petitioner submitted letters from individuals indicating interest in 
working with her company, a business plan, recommendation letters, and industry articles and reports 
in support of her eligibility. 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence. In response, the Petitioner provided 
additional industry articles and reports and referred to her previously submitted documentation. She 
asserted that the record demonstrates her plan to continue her career in the United States as a clinical 
nurse specialist/entrepreneur is "an area of national importance because of the ripple effects it 
generates upon national matters, such as the urgent shortage of nursing professionals, which is 
threatening the functionality of the U.S. healthcare system, as well as the health and well-being of 
Americans." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate the importance of the Petitioner's 
2 
endeavor on a national scale. The Director noted that while the submitted evidence emphasized the 
significance of the nursing field and relevance to U.S. interests, the record did not demonstrate that 
the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would extend beyond her future 
company, patients, and business partnerships, and have national implications. In addition, the Director 
found that the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. The Petitioner 
did not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her proposed endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. Regarding the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor meets the national importance prong 
due in part to the nursing shortage in the United States, the Director noted that a shortage in a particular 
field does not render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred by requiring a stricter standard of proof than 
preponderance of evidence, imposing novel substantive and evidentiary requirements, and failing to 
fully consider the submitted documentation. The Petitioner reiterates her professional experience and 
argues the submitted evidence establishes her proposed endeavor has national importance. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their 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. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed 
the evidence to evaluate whether she had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon review, the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 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." See 
Dhanasar, Id. at 889. Generally, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" 
of a petitioner's work. The Petitioner submitted documents addressing the importance of the nursing 
profession, home health care, and entrepreneurial initiatives, and the impact of these activities on the 
U.S. economy and society. She also provided recommendation letters describing her professional 
experience and accomplishments. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities 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. Additionally, the articles and reports failed to 
establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national implications, significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance 
3 
of providing quality home healthcare, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in 
which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her company's operations would provide substantial 
economic benefits to California, the region, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance, nor did she demonstrate that her company's activities would 
substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. The 
Petitioner's business plan projects that her company will have 68 employees, $20.4 million in revenue, 
and $19. 7 million in operating costs during the first five years of operation. The plan also indicates 
the working capital and start-up funds are "covered by the equity invested in the company by [the 
Petitioner], private funds[,] plus the reinvestment of the net profit," and the initial capital investment 
of $190,000 will be comprised of the Petitioner's "funds saved throughout her career alongside" two 
other individual investors. Upon review, the record does not sufficiently show how the company will 
pay salaries and other operational expenses and the business plan lacks sufficient evidence to show 
adequate investment funds, either from the Petitioner or other entities. 
We note the record contains letters from the individuals referenced in the business plan as investors 
who will provide private funds as part of the company's initial working capital. Though the letters 
indicate the individuals are interested in investing in the Petitioner's company, they do not specify an 
investment amount. Further, the record lacks evidence of committed funds from the potential investors 
or contractual commitments from individuals or organizations to work with the proposed company or 
obtain the prospective services. Regarding the Petitioner's assertion that she will provide her own 
funds saved throughout her career, the supporting documentation includes a one-page statement from 
a Brazilian bank reflecting total account balances for September and October 2022. However, the 
documentation does not clarify the currency referenced in the bank statement or establish these funds 
will be available for future capital investment in her proposed company. The Petitioner also submitted 
a one-page summary showing the Petitioner is a secondary joint owner of a U.S. bank account, which 
was opened in October 2022, and had a $23,000 balance as of November 2022. Due to the business 
plan deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence to support the financial and employment projections, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her company has significant potential to reach the stated 
economic impact objectives, including in the referenced HUB zones; employ U.S. workers; or 
otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make 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 alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4