dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 16, 2024 In Re: 30625965 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse assistant, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, 
when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is an individual of exceptional ability or that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she is an individual of exceptional 
ability and as such did not establish that she qualifies for the EB-2 classification. 2 Regarding the 
Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director found that the Petitioner demonstrated 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor but did not demonstrate the endeavor's national 
importance, that she is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability and that she 
has established her eligibility for a national interest waiver under each of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
Because, as we discuss below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, we need not reach the question of whether she qualifies for the 
EB-2 classification or the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar framework and we reserve our 
opinion regarding those issues. 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). The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a nurse assistant. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor, 
the Director noted that in this determination USCIS focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 
proposes to undertake, rather than the importance of the field, industry, or profession. The Director 
concluded that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond the Petitioner's employer or clientele at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief in which she primarily restates the same claims made before 
the Director regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In support of the endeavor's 
national importance, the Petitioner emphasizes her specialized knowledge and experience in the 
occupation, the importance of nurse positions to the healthcare system and of the healthcare industry 
overall, the shortage of qualified workers in the occupation, the economic burden associated with 
chronic illnesses, and the presidential administration's national initiative related to cancer prevention 
and early detection. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner does not claim to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
2 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that record does not establish the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor. While the Petitioner claims that she has significant experience and 
knowledge in her field, this claim does not help demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the 
proposed endeavor. Evidence of a petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record of success generally 
relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the [noncitizen]" and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. Id. The Petitioner 
must establish that her specific endeavor-to work in the healthcare field as a nursing assistant-has 
national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. While a petitioner's achievements in the field may 
be relevant in some circumstances in establishing the potential prospective impact of their endeavor, 
the Petitioner has not explained how her experience or knowledge demonstrate that the endeavor has 
the potential to impact the U.S. healthcare system or the economy at a level commensurate with 
national importance. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claims about the importance of the nursing occupation and of the healthcare 
industry itself, we agree with the Director that, in determining whether a proposed endeavor has 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in 
which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the "specific 
endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Although the Director stated this 
deficiency in the decision, on appeal the Petitioner restates these claims without addressing or 
overcoming the Director's conclusion they do not help demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's specific, proposed endeavor. 
As to the Petitioner's claims regarding the shortage of qualified workers in the healthcare field, the 
economic burden of chronic illnesses and the economic benefits of improving the health of the U.S. 
population, and the importance of cancer prevention and early detection, we conclude that these claims 
similarly do not help establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. The record does 
not contain evidence that would support the conclusion that the Petitioner's work as a single nurse 
assistant would lessen the shortage of workers or improve healthcare in the United States on a scale 
commensurate with national importance. While the Petitioner's work may help improve the health of 
her own patients, the record does not demonstrate that this will result in any meaningful impact on the 
health of the U.S. population in general or on cancer prevention and detection specifically. 
Overall, the Petitioner references very little specific evidence from the record on appeal and instead 
simply states broad claims about the national importance of the endeavor, asserting that her experience 
"holds immense significance for American healthcare, patient well-being, job creation, and economic 
growth" and that her contributions have the potential "to make a profound and lasting impact on 
society." But these general, conclusory statements are made without sufficient information or 
evidence in the record to support them and are, therefore, insufficient for the Petitioner to meet her 
burden of proof The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work as a nursing assistant will differ 
from the services offered by others in the field, offer improvements or new approaches that are 
3 
replicable through the field, or otherwise would stand to broadly impact the healthcare industry or the 
economy beyond those patients directly served. 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor, as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework; therefore, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to her qualification 
as an individual of exceptional ability and the second and third Dhanasar prongs but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs or her eligibility 
for the EB-2 classification. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 alternative issues 
on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the national importance requirement of the first prong of Dhanasar. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4