dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 4, 2023 In Re: 28999328 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a registered 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework, as 
a matter of discretion. 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 Christa'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 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 "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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 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 qualifies for the EB-2 classification as a professional 
holding the foreign equivalent of an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner 
has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that in denying the petition, the Director 
"imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations." 
However, she does not point to specific examples of this within the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) and denial. Importantly, she also does not offer detailed analysis explaining the particular ways 
in which the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary requirements" in denying the 
petition, supported by pertinent law or regulation. 
The Petitioner also alleges 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 ofMartinez, 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 I USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While she asserts on 
appeal that she has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate her eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, she does not farther 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence and arguments previously offered and reaffirms her 
intention to continue her career as a registered nurse and acute care provider. She discusses her 
graduate level education in the field and claims to be "an exceptionally well-prepared healthcare 
manager." The Director determined in her denial that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, and we agree with her determination. 
We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner continues to emphasize the importance of the health 
care industry generally, and the field of registered nursing specifically, to our nation. For instance, 
she discusses how nursing vacancies have negatively impacted patient outcomes and have "limited 
Americans' access to higher level healthcare to the detriment of communities, families, and 
individuals." But the record does not suggest that the Petitioner's patient care duties would meet the 
current demand for registered nurses, address the national registered nurse shortage, or otherwise 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner highlights the societal welfare and economic importance of health care 
professionals such as registered nurses by pointing to previously provided industry and governmental 
reports on this and other related topics. This material demonstrates the registered nursing occupation 
is important; however, this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the proposed 
2 
endeavor. 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We 
conclude that much of the Petitioner's evidence relates to the importance of the registered nurse 
profession or field, rather than the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. While we 
agree that the registered nurse field is important, it is not apparent from the evidence or arguments 
provided that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that as a registered nurse "she will enhance the revenue of U.S. 
companies, thus elevating their productivity patterns and market growth, while simultaneously making 
significant impact on [the lives of] individuals and families by providing much needed healthcare 
services." She also contends that she will "provide significant service to her community by 
safeguarding the lives of the nation's citizens and providing high-level specialized services which will 
ultimately impact the productivity of the U.S. business ecosystem .... " Additionally, she discusses 
her plans to pursue a nursing instructor position in order to train "a new generation of nurses." 
While we acknowledge her general assertions about how she will substantially benefit the nation 
through her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has provided insufficient probative evidence or 
explanation to support them. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In Dhanasar, 
we determined 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. Even if the Petitioner had provided 
additional evidence of her capacity to deliver registered nursing services or to provide nursing 
instruction to others, we would likely conclude that such evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the 
endeavor's broader impact. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how her proposed 
endeavor would impact the registered nurse profession or the nation at a level commensurate with 
national importance. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner is ineligible for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 2 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). Here, the Director weighed the law and facts of this 
case appropriately, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We also agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility under Dhanasar 's third 
prong. But as she is otherwise ineligible for a national interest waiver further analysis of her eligibility under the third 
prong outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
3