dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 12, 2024 In Re: 31652787 
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, 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 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 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. 
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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in her professional plan and statement is "to work as 
a Nurse and assist U.S. hospitals, clinics, and any other medical facilities to treat patients ( children, 
adults, and the elderly) that need [her] specialty to recover their health." In a supplemental 
professional plan and statement submitted with the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner 
stated that she had "intimate and first-hand knowledge in the areas of specialized and general nursing, 
intensive nursing of post-operative patients, neurological and cardiological intensive care, neonatal 
intensive care, cardiac and respiratory resuscitation, healthcare staff training, and healthcare 
administration." She clarified that through her proposed endeavor she would "be an important asset 
to support the country and the population to fight the current health crisis." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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 denying the petition, the Director determined that this proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit but concluded that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. 2 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence, we have 
reviewed the record in its entirety. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of 
proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, to [her] detriment." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375; see also Matter of 
Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 
1965). Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national 
interest waiver petitions. See 1 USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
While the Petitioner asserts that she has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for 
the EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, she does not further explain or identify any 
specific instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of 
evidence in denying the petition. 
2 We note that the Director did not address whether the Petitioner satisfied the second prong of Dhanasar but determined 
that the Petitioner had not established that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
2 
The Petitioner further contends on appeal that the Director's denial did not adequately consider her 
resume, professional plan, letters of recommendation, evidence of her work in the field, and industry 
articles in the record. Upon review, the Petitioner's resume details her skills and prior work in the 
field. An expert opinion letter from a professor in the nursing department of the _____ 
described, in part, the Petitioner's academic background and her work experience in the fields of 
nursing, clinical practice, and general healthcare. Other evidence in the record below, such as 
certificates of completion in nursing coursework, the Petitioner's North Carolina nursing certificate, 
and correspondence confirming the Petitioner's work experience in the field of nursing, also describe 
her skills and prior work experience in the field of nursing. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and 
prior work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec.at 890. The 
issue here is whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner provided numerous the industry reports and news articles addressing the nursing 
profession, changes in the healthcare industry, and the important contributions that nurses could make 
as a result of these changes. For example, one report discusses how including nurses in leadership 
roles on care teams will contribute to improved outcomes for patients, while another notes that 
providing increased training to nurses will allow them to provide care for more complicated and costly 
procedures, thus increasing healthcare revenues. We acknowledge the importance of the field of 
nursing in contributing to positive health outcomes as well as the Petitioner's arguments that nursing 
is important for the nation's societal well-being. However, 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 "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
at 889. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that she "will be addressing an industry shortage, which cannot 
be addressed by the U.S. workers as demand exceeds supply." We are not persuaded by the argument 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her 
field. The Petitioner provided industry reports addressing a labor shortage in the field of nursing. The 
expert opinion letter from the professor at the _____ also discussed the increase in demand 
for healthcare workers as well as the resulting shortage for workers in that industry. The professor 
notes that the U.S. has been experiencing a "deficit" in the nursing workforce for some time but that 
due to "an aging population, the rising incidence of chronic disease, an aging nursing workforce, and 
the limited capacity of nursing schools," this shortage "is on the cusp of becoming a crisis." The 
professor states that "nursing is currently one of the fastest-growing occupations in the 
country,"[ d]espite that growth, demand is outpacing supply." However, the Petitioner has not 
established that her proposed endeavor stands to significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. 
Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process. 
Finally, the Petitioner explains on appeal that an "integral" part of her proposed endeavor is "her 
commitment to training and developing future U.S. nursing professionals." She asserts that "[t]his 
3 
commitment extends her impact ... to a broader and systemic level, addressing the need for a skilled 
and competent nursing workforce in the U.S." In addition, she argues that "[h ]er role in education and 
mentorship will have a multiplier effect, enhancing the quality of healthcare services across various 
regions." 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. While 
the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to train and develop future U.S. nurses, she has not 
offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that her 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer or her patients to impact her 
field, nursing, or the U.S. economy more broadly, at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are 
dispositive of the Petitioner ' s appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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 reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4