dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 25, 2023 In Re: 26399972 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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 in 
the sciences, 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 
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 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 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 "nationa l 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 also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner is a professional nurse with specialized training and more than 10 years of experience 
in nephrology. She states that her specific area of expertise is in the use ofhemodialysis as a treatment 
for irreversible kidney failure. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a trained hemodialysis 
nurse providing direct patient care to dialysis patients. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal 
statement describing her professional experience and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, 
and recommendation and support letters. She also submitted industry reports and articles with 
statistics relevant to chronic kidney disease, the economic value of nursing, and the overall nursing 
shortage facing the United States. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement, a professional 
plan, and additional recommendation letters. She also provided her nursing licenses for multiple states 
and evidence of her current employment. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national importance, that she is well-positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Acting Director stated 
that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's continued work caring for dialysis patients 
will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that 
her work will have broader implications in the field of medicine. The Acting Director further noted 
that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner published or presented work on hemodialysis 
treatment or that her work served as an impetus for progress in the medical field. Additionally, the 
Acting Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors such as the 
impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the United States, 
an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation of jobs, or that her self­
employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in nursing and obstetrics 
earned in 2004 in Brazil, followed by more than five years of progressive experience in nursing. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Acting Director incorrectly applied a higher standard of 
evidence in analyzing her eligibility for a national interest waiver. She further asserts that, as her 
proposed endeavor is to improve the quality of life of the population undergoing dialysis treatment, 
and as she has nearly 20 years of experience in the field, she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
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. 
The Acting Director did not state that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit in the 
RFE, or in the denial of the petition. As noted above, the record includes information about the 
economic value of nursing and the importance of dialysis treatment for chronic kidney disease. As 
the Petitioner has demonstrated that her proposed endeavor is in the field of health and medicine, we 
conclude that the proposed endeavor here has substantial merit. 
The Petitioner proposes to care for patients as a dialysis nurse. In her professional plan, the Petitioner 
describes the challenges that dialysis treatment centers face in finding professionals with hemodialysis 
experience and retaining them for continued employment. The Petitioner also describes instances in 
her career where she was able to improve the quality of patient care and improve care procedures that 
lead to cost-saving measures. While her endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's patient care would impact the field of nursing 
or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific patients and 
workplaces she serves. 
In order to illustrate the potential impact of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner pointed to her 
success in the past and her qualifications as a nurse. We reviewed her statements and the letters of 
recommendation from her professional acquaintances. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's 
abilities as a student and nurse, and the personal attributes that make her an asset to the workplace and 
patients she serves. While the recommendation letters evidence the high regard the Petitioner's 
professional acquaintances have for her and her work, none of the letters offers persuasive detail 
concerning the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how such impact would extend beyond 
the patients and employers she serves. As such, the letters are not probative of the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner's knowledge, 
skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue under the first prong 
is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her proposed work. 
The Petitioner contends that her proposed endeavor is nationally important due to the national shortage 
of nurses trained in hemodialysis. We acknowledge these circumstances and understand how they 
place the Petitioner's nursing work in high demand. We further acknowledge the Petitioner's 
arguments that she can improve her patients' quality of life and provide essential mentoring and 
guidance to future nurses. Nevertheless, the Petitioner must still offer sufficient evidence to address 
the deficiencies the Director identified concerning the endeavor's benefit to the Petitioner's employer 
and patients, but not beyond that population. Although the Petitioner asserts that her proposed 
3 
endeavor extends beyond her patients to increase the likelihood that they will extend their lives and 
contribute to the U.S. workforce, she has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how the 
implications of her proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not 
explained, for instance, how many patients she will treat or how treating those patients will have a 
broader impact on the healthcare field. She has not suggested that her work will resolve the national 
nursing shortage, nor has she explained what specific impact her work would have on reducing such 
a shortage. Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the impact she makes for her individual 
workplace and patients, to claim as sufficient to meet the first Dhana sar prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reemphasizes that the field of nursing is nationally important and that a severe 
nursing shortage exists. While the Petitioner 's evidence establishes how her endeavor stands to impact 
the specific patients and workplaces she serves, the evidence does not persuasively establish how her 
endeavor will have a broader impact. Accordingly , the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and demonstrate 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. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, which is dispositive 
of the appeal, we decline to reach but hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 
the second and third Dhanasar prongs . See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
4