dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 15, 2024 In Re: 33243511 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse who proposes to operate a startup company to facilitate access to healthcare­
related information for the elderly, 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. 
§ 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification and a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement. 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 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 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. 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. 
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 the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. 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, 3 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 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a ]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present "[a]n 
official academic record showing that the alien has a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
Although the Petitioner initially claimed that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, the Director did not address this portion of her petition. Upon review, the evidence is 
insufficient to show that the Petitioner holds an advanced degree. She claims that the nursing diploma 
she obtained in Brazil is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and that since obtaining her nursing 
degree, she has obtained additional education in addition to more than five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in nursing. The Petitioner submitted a copy of her diploma from the 
4 in Brazil, a transcript showing she attended eight semesters of classes for 
her nursing degree, and evidence of additional post-graduate specialization certificates she obtained. 
2 USCTS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 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). 
4 Other evidence in the record refers to this institution as the 
2 
She also provided an Academic Credential Evaluation Report (academic evaluation) by a private 
degree evaluator, opining that the Petitioner's education is "functionally equivalent to the U.S. degrees 
of Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Master of Science in Nursing/Master of Public Health." 
Specifically, the academic evaluation states the Petitioner's nursing degree is equivalent to a U.S. 
Bachelor of Science in nursing and that her further studies resulting in certificates of specialization are 
equivalent to a U.S. Master of Science in Nursing/Master of Public Health. The Petitioner also argues 
that she has more than five years of post-baccalaureate work experience. 
Regardless of her education or experience after obtaining her nursing diploma, the evidence is not 
sufficient to show that the Petitioner has the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree. The record 
indicates that the Petitioner attended the ________ between 1996 and 1999 but the 
academic evaluation she submitted notes the institution did not "transform[] into a university center" 
until 1999. Publicly available information about the history of the institution also shows that the 
Brazilian Ministry of Education authorized its operation as a university in September 1999, and the 
transcript she submitted indicates in the letterhead that it operates pursuant to a decree issued in 1999. 
The record does not contain evidence that the university was accredited prior to 1999. For purposes 
of EB-2 classification, a college or university must have been accredited by the relevant authority at 
the time the individual attended the institution. While the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 do not 
specifically state that a degree must come from an accredited college or university, the requirement is 
implicit in the regulation. This requirement ensures that the college or university was evaluated by a 
credible institution to possess a basic level of quality by applying specific criteria and procedures 
reflecting the qualities of a sound educational program. Accordingly, we will not recognize a degree 
from an unaccredited educational institution for purposes of satisfying the educational requirements 
for EB-2 classification. The Petitioner attended the from 1996 to 1999, 
apparently prior to the accreditation of the university, according to the information she provided. She 
has not submitted sufficient evidence that her nursing degree is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree, and therefore she cannot establish that she holds an advanced degree. 
B. Exceptional Ability 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the regulatory criteria for classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Although the Petitioner claims in some portions of her appeal and 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) that she did not claim to be an individual of 
exceptional ability, her attorney did state in the letter supporting her petition that she is both a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree and an individual with exceptional ability. However, the 
arguments and evidence that followed focused on whether she has an advanced degree. On appeal, the 
Petitioner notes that although the Director indicated that the Petitioner sought to classify herself as an 
individual of exceptional ability, 'That was not the case, as [her] Advanced Degree has been evidenced . 
. . . " However, she also states on appeal that her "Exceptional Ability (three criteria) have already been 
evidenced ... " and appears to argue that she meets the criteria relating to possession of a degree, diploma, 
or certificate; ten years of foll-time work experience; license to practice the profession; and recognition 
for achievements and significant contributions to the field. 5 The record does not clearly indicate whether 
5 The Petitioner also notes on appeal that the Director mistakenly stated in the RFE that the Petitioner is a speech therapist. 
We acknowledge this error. but it was harmless, as the Director did not repeat the mistake in the final decision and the 
record indicates the Director properly assessed the Petitioner's experience as a nurse and her proposed endeavor in 
healthcare. 
3 
the Petitioner claims to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, but because the Director partly 
based the denial on a determination that she did not meet this requirement, we will address it. Upon de 
novo review, the evidence is not sufficient to show that the Petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area ofexceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Director concluded, and we agree, that the Petitioner meets this criterion. The Petitioner has a 
diploma in nursing from thel Iin Brazil, as well as certificates and transcripts 
reflecting further education in nursing specializations. 
Evidence in the form ofletter(s)from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years offitll-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. Upon de novo review, we agree. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from her employer at ______ indicating she worked there 
from 2002 to 2004. Although the letter describes the Petitioner's duties at the hospital, it does not specify 
the start and end dates of her employment or state whether she worked full or part time. Similarly, she 
submits a letter from her employer at indicating only that she worked there 
from 2013 to 2014 without providing specific start and end dates or whether she worked full or part time. 
Even if these two letters did contain the necessary details, they only account for approximately three years 
of employment in total and she has not provided letters from other employers to show at least ten years 
of full-time experience. The Petitioner provided her Brazilian Digital Work Card, which lists her history 
of employment contracts with dates and an occupation name for each, but it does not provide a description 
of her duties or indicate whether she worked full or part time. The other letters the Petitioner provides 
are from former colleagues who worked with her, particularly at the 
but those letters do not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation that they be from current 
or former employers, and the Petitioner does not provide evidence that letters from her current or former 
employers are unavailable such that the regulation would allow us to accept other evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(g)(l). Furthermore, the letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues do not contain the 
required details about her dates of employment and full or part time work schedule. The Petitioner 
has not met this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or cert[fication for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In the RFE, the Director stated this criterion was met because the Petitioner submitted a certificate from 
the Regional Council of Odontology and a license from the "Federal and Regional Council of Odontology 
for Dental Surgeon." This appears to have been in error, as the Petitioner's education and work experience 
are in nursing, not odontology or dental surgery, but neither the Director nor the Petitioner raised the 
issue. However, the Petitioner did submit her membership card indicating her registration as a nurse with 
the Federal Counsel of Nursing. Therefore, upon de novo review, she has provided a license or 
certification to practice the profession of nursing and meets this criterion. 
4 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner submitted letters of support from colleagues and former employers who worked with 
her in healthcare settings. The letters generally praised the Petitioner's nursing skills, professionalism, 
and contributions to the care of her patients, but did not explain how the Petitioner's work was 
recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues generally that she has "introduced a plethora of documents" showing that she has 
been recognized for her achievements and contributions "to peers, governmental entities, and 
professional and business organizations," but does not offer further explanation because she asserts 
that she already met three other criteria. As stated, although the recommendation letters discuss the 
Petitioner's value as an employee and her successes working as a nurse in various healthcare settings, 
they do not provide information on recognitions she received for achievements and significant 
contributions to the field. The Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
For the reasons set forth above, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies at least three 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for 
exceptional ability classification. 
C. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. As previously outlined, in order to qualify 
for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that she qualifies for classification under 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability. The Petitioner has not shown that she is an advanced degree professional or that 
she has satisfied the regulatory criteria and achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional 
ability classification. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
immigrant classification. However, even if she had made such a showing, she still has not established 
that a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification is in the 
national interest. 
The Petitioner has a degree in nursing from a Brazilian university, in addition to post-graduate 
certificates in several nursing specializations. She has worked as a nurse in healthcare settings. Her 
proposed endeavor is to own, operate, and serve as the CEO of a startup company "aimed at developing 
health education solutions that facilitate access to quality information and the integration of knowledge 
capable of improving the experience of the elderly in maintaining their health at low costs." The brief 
in support of her petition explains that she intends to focus on "providing health-care consulting 
services to various clinics in the US in order to improve their work processes, methodologies, patient 
care strategies, and much more." However, her business plan states she will "reduce the dependence 
of the elderly through courses, seminars, and workshops that stimulate the search for health, well­
bring, life quality, and theoretical/practical training that empower the elderly to regain their 
autonomy." She states the services she will provide include webinars, "external seminars," online 
courses and games, "presential courses," and individual consulting with "the elderly and their 
5 
families," but does not discuss in her business plan an intention to provide consulting for medical 
clinics. The discrepancy between the brief and the business plan on this point is not clarified in the 
record. The Petitioner asserts that her efforts to educate the elderly about healthcare will prevent 
diseases, reduce public spending on healthcare, and improve the independence of elderly people. She 
describes a plan to begin operations in Florida, serving up to seventy percent of the elderly population 
in that state, or approximately three million people. She states she will expand operations to 
neighboring states after the third year and will eventually serve clients in every state "through itinerant 
seminars" and online workshops covering "topics of health, diseases prevention, self-care and the 
elderly independence .... " She intends for 2.3 percent of Florida's elderly population to be customers 
of her company by the end of her fifth year in business. 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 
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 discusses the aging population in the United States and notes that the "increasing 
number of adults aged 65 and older has boosted demand for long-term care services .... " She notes 
links between poverty and health care costs, high public spending on health care, and the difficulties 
elderly and other marginalized people face in accessing quality health care and information. As 
supporting evidence, she provides articles about industry growth and the rising demand for services to 
the elderly in the United States due to an aging population; data on total health expenditures in the 
United States; population projections data; information on increasing healthcare costs due to the 
population growth of persons aged 65 and older; the importance of clinical preventive services in 
managing the health care of older adults to improve their quality of life and reduce U.S. healthcare 
spending; and articles on the nursing workforce in the United States. However, whether healthcare 
for elderly adults is important is not the issue here and relates more to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor. Instead, the Petitioner must show that her specific, proposed endeavor of 
providing classes and workshops to elderly adults in Florida is nationally important. 
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. 
6 
The Petitioner also contends that her proposed endeavor can help alleviate the nursing shortage in the 
United States by providing alternative healthcare solutions for elderly people. However, the shortage 
of occupations or occupational skills does not render her proposed endeavor nationally important 
under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by 
the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses her knowledge, education, and experience and asserts that she will 
positively influence the environment in which she works. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 
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 
that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
As additional supporting evidence, the Petitioner submits an expert opinion letter from a university 
professor who found the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor has national importance. The letter 
discusses the aging population in the United States and the need for care services and healthcare 
spending to support that population and states the Petitioner will have a national impact by "reducing 
elderly dependence through courses, seminars, and workshops promoting health, well-being, and 
quality of life." However, the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's plan to conduct workshops 
for elderly people in Florida would have broader implications for our country. Here, the letter repeats 
the same arguments addressed above pertaining to the importance of various topics and subjects 
without showing the wider effect in the field of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor. The 
expert opinion letter also discusses the Petitioner's plan to hire 21 people over five years without 
showing the projected U.S. economic impact attributable to the Petitioner's particular services or 
company. Here, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy 
resulting from her specific services or business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
However, the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's particular services would have broader 
implications for our country. The letter also emphasizes the Petitioner's "impressive 22-year tenure in 
the health industry" and her expertise in nursing. But the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, 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 that she 
proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her services would largely influence the field and rise 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond her prospective clients or employees to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Although she provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
sufficient supporting evidence to corroborate the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did 
7 
not demonstrate how her business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if 
credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts gross revenues of 
$220,268 in year one and growing to $1,936,632 in year five, Petitioner did not establish the 
significance of this data to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even 
though the business plan claims total employment of four people in year one and 21 in year five, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show that such future staffing levels 
would provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such 
employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially 
impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the 
record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and 
employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having 
national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further analysis of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, and a review of the Petitioner's 
qualification for the underlying immigrant classification, would serve no meaningful purpose. 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 alternate issues on appeal where applicants 
do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. Additionally, as the Petitioner has 
not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude she has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8