dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 28539600 Date: OCT. 13, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, requests classification under the employment-based, second-preference (EB-
2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of its job-offer requirement. See Immigration and National 
Act (the Act) section 202(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse a job offer - and thus the related requirement for 
certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)- if she demonstrates that a waiver would be 
"in the national interest." Id. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate her qualifications for the EB-2 category as a member of the professions 
holding an "advanced degree" or that she warrants a national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she has established her qualifications for the requested EB-2 category but not 
for a national interest waiver. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for national interest waivers, petlt10ners must first demonstrate their 
qualifications for the requested EB-2 immigrant visa category, either as advanced degree professionals 
or noncitizens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act. This category usually requires prospective U.S. employers to offer noncitizens jobs and obtain 
DOL certifications to permanently employ the noncitizens in the country. 1 Section 212(a)(5)(D) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). To avoid these job offer/labor certification requirements, 
petitioners must demonstrate that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections are in the national interest. 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
1 Recognizing a nursing shortage in the United States, DOL has a shorter, less demanding labor certification process for 
nursing positions. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.5(a)(3)(ii) (listing the occupation of professional nurse on Schedule A). But 
Schedule A proceedings still require job offers. See 20 C.F .R. § 656.15( a). 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." Thus, to adjudicate these waiver 
requests, we have established a framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or noncitizens of exceptional ability, 
petitioners may merit waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements if they establish that: 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and 
• On balance, waivers of the job-offer/labor certification requirements would benefit the United 
States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner, a Brazilian national and citizen, attended university in her home country, earning a 
titulo de enfermeira and two post-graduate certificates in family health and oncology. She claims 
that, before entering the United States in 2017, she gained more than eight years of nursing experience 
in Brazil. 
In May 2020, the Petitioner and her spouse established a U.S. company for which she intends to work 
as a "nursing management specialist." She states that she would provide management and guidance 
to nursing departments at U.S. hospitals and other healthcare facilities. 
B. Advanced Degree Professional 
An advanced degree professional must have an "advanced degree." Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
The term includes "[a] United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner 
must demonstrate their eligibility for a requested benefit at the time of the benefit's request. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
As the Director found, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner's 2008 titulo de enfermeira equates 
to a U.S. bachelor's degree in nursing. The Director also determined that she established her 
possession of about two years and six months of progressive post-baccalaureate nursing experience, 
from July 2014 to January 201 7. But the Director found that, contrary to the requirements for an 
advanced degree professional, she did not demonstrate that she gained at least five years of qualifying 
post-baccalaureate experience. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that her work for a Brazilian hospital from February 2010 to May 
2014 constitutes an additional four-plus years of qualifying experience, establishing her eligibility as 
an advanced degree professional. To demonstrate qualifying experience, a petitioner must submit 
letters from their former employers. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). The letters must contain the employers' 
names, titles, and addresses, and descriptions of the petitioner's experience. Id. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence, the Petitioner submitted a 2022 letter 
from the Brazilian hospital's medical director. The letter states the Petitioner's employment as a nurse 
manager from February 2010 to May 2014 and describes her experience. The Director discounted the 
letter, finding that its description of the Petitioner's duties conflicts with one in a prior hospital letter 
that stated she was "working in rotating shifts." See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) 
(requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies). 
Contrary to the Director's finding, however, the record does not establish that the hospital letters 
conflict. Both documents state that the Petitioner worked in the hospital's "Central Sterile Services 
Department," or "CSSD." Other letters and certificates of record also indicate her nursing work at 
that time in the hospital's CSSD. Thus, although the 2022 letter does not specify the rotating nature 
of the Petitioner's shifts, the document describes her experience consistent with the prior letter and 
other materials. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates her possession of more than five 
years of progressive, post-baccalaureate experience in the nursing field. 
The Petitioner has established her qualifications for the EB-2 immigrant visa category as an advanced 
degree professional. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
C. Substantial Merit 
A proposed endeavor may have substantial merit whether it "has the potential to create a significant 
economic impact" or it relates to "research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's proposed undertaking could improve U.S. 
healthcare services and help alleviate the nation's nursing shortage. Thus, we agree with the Director 
that her venture has substantial merit. 
D. National Importance 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the 
particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. "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." Id. A nationally important venture may even focus 
on only one geographic area of the United States. Id. at 889-90. "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. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's proposed work would rise to the level of 
national importance. The Director found that she did not establish that the benefits of her endeavor 
would reach beyond her company and its clients. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked evidence, including that: 
• The Petitioner would help U.S. nursing teams "battle against COVID-19 so that lives can be 
saved and the [U.S.] economy can begin to heal." 
3 
• While her business would initially target clients in Miami, the enterprise would - within five 
years - also serve clients in I I 
• The Petitioner's business would help clients provide better care, improve their financial 
performances, increase patient satisfaction, enhance the work environments of medical 
professionals, disseminate skills and knowledge to U.S. workers, generate additional revenues, 
and create employment opportunities. 
• Expert opinion letters state that her endeavor has the potential to employ U.S. workers, 
stimulate economic growth, and teach and train other medical professionals. 
We agree that the activities and results listed above are all worthy. But, as previously indicated, USCIS 
must focus on the Petitioner's particular endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 
("The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake.") The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her 
specific endeavor would have national implications for the healthcare field or the economy. 
For example, the Petitioner's business plan projects that, within five years, her business would 
generate sales of $1,113,416, directly employ eight people, and indirectly create about 20 jobs. Even 
if these projections are realistic, however, the record does not establish that they are nationally 
significant or that the business would benefit an economically depressed area. Similarly, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that her work would lead to national advances in the healthcare field. 
The two expert opm10n letters from U.S. professors of biology and 
anatomy/physiology/microbiology - state that the Petitioner's business would help healthcare 
providers improve efficiency, better manage their caseloads, stimulate productivity, and attract 
professionals to the field. But the letters describe her endeavor as contributing to the improvement 
of U.S. healthcare. The expert opinion letters do not state that the Petitioner's specific venture - by 
itself- would significantly affect the U.S. healthcare field or economy. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has national 
importance. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
Our determination regarding the venture's national importance resolves this appeal. We therefore 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her positioning to 
advance her endeavor and the purported benefits to the country of waiving U.S.-worker protections. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); 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 did not 
otherwise qualify for relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner demonstrated her qualifications for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. The record, however, does not establish that her proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5