dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20603396 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 4, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of theN ebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;MatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369,375 (AAO 
2010). Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936F.3d 868, 2019 WL4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a na tionalinterest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As described in the Petitioner's May 2021 "Professional Plan": 
I intend to continue my activities as a [ n ]urse, utilizing all of the knowledge I acquired in 
programs and courses, along with my professional experience, which have considerably 
contributed toward the successful development of my work in an efficient manner, 
guaranteeing the best results. I also intend to take new courses according to the demand in the 
healthcare field, which is constantly evolving, as well as taking the courses necessary to 
validate my credentials in the U.S. 
The Director determined that, although the Petitioner had demonstrated the substantial merit of her 
proposed endeavor, she had not established its national importance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analysis. 
As discussed by the Director and as we explained in our precedent decision, 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider 
its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. 
Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as 
their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to 
have national importance ... An 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 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor "has palpable broader implications, as its results are 
widely disseminated to other professionals in the field," but does not provide documentation, such as 
research publications, to support her claims. As evidence, the Petitioner references "the probative letters 
previously submitted ... which testify to the dissemination ofmyworkthrough the [h ]ealthcareindustry." 
While the letters demonstrate the high regard the authors have for the Petitioner and her work, they do 
not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be of national importance. Even if the 
Petitioner replicates her nursing success in the United States through her proposed endeavor, her 
3 
success would be limited to the patients and employers she serves. 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. Similarly, the record in this matter does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to suffi ciently extend beyond her 
immediate employer(s), coworkers , and patients such that it would impact U.S. healthcare or the field 
of nursing more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner relies on her experience and prior career accomplishments to establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. However, the 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 , by a preponderance of the evidence , the national importance of her 
proposed work . See Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 376 (BIA 2010) and Matter of E-M-, 
20 I&N Dec. 77 (BIA 1989) , 
The Petitioner also incorrectly asserts that the Director misapplied theDhanasar analytical framework 
by "looking for national importance solely in geographical terms" and requiring a job offer. A review 
of the Director's decision, however, does not support this claim. There is no indication that the 
Director evaluated the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor solely in geographic terms or 
concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that she meets this element because she lacked a 
specific offer of employment. 
Without more , we cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets the national importance portion of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar analysis. For example, 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 any potential 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. 
Nor has she documented that the particular work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations 
that contribute to advancements in nursing or otherwise has broader implicat ions for the field or the 
U.S. healthca re industry . 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since 
this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate 
arguments regarding the remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts 
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 
results they reach "); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Accordingly, 
we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5