dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 24, 2024 In Re: 32452770 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, seeks classification as a member of a profession holding an advanced degree. 
See 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, 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). 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. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for the classification as an advanced degree holder, she had not established that a waiver of 
the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In her initial filing, the Petitioner outlined her proposed endeavor, which entailed working as a nurse 
in a hospital in I I Florida, earning a doctorate in nursing from the I 
and then becoming a travel nurse, where she would help expand advanced nursing practices to her 
places of work. 
1 The Applicant submitted two separate motion s, this one under and a second one a day prior with identical 
information underl As such, two decisions will be issued. 
I 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. See id. 
at 889 (providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the 
petitioner must establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). More 
specifically, we determined the Petitioner did not show her endeavor would have an impact beyond 
her patients and trainees to the broader field of nursing or healthcare. We indicated further that 
although her endeavor aligned with national initiatives, she did not provide sufficient evidence to show 
it would have a significant impact on solving the nursing shortage in the United States or that her 
endeavor would stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. 
On motion, the Petitioner explains generally how she believes we overlooked or under appreciated the 
depth and scope of her contributions to the field of nursing and their alignment with the national 
interest. On motion to reopen, she states that she has identified new evidence not previously submitted 
with her initial application which directly supports her claims that her endeavor is nationally important. 
She submits a new plan, expanding on her previous endeavor. Although, the Petitioner submits new 
evidence, this new evidence does not change our decision for the following reasons. The Petitioner 
now asserts that to have a broad impact on the nursing field her endeavor will expand to enhance 
academic and research collaborations; leverage professional associations; develop and disseminate 
technical manuals and training; create a national platform for professional development; and introduce 
a new consultancy model for targeted impact. The Petitioner does not provide the specifics needed to 
show how her new expanded endeavor will be implemented. For example, the Petitioner asserts that 
she will create a national platform for professional development, which will be an online platform 
with courses, webinars, mentorship programs, and recognition of nurse achievements. This platform 
will also have the ability to share cutting edge research and intake user feedback. However, the 
Petitioner provides no specifics on how this platform will be implemented, whether she can create it 
herself or whether she would need to hire professionals to help her. In addition, she provided no 
information on the economics of creating such a platform like what it would cost to create and who 
would burden that cost. For each new initiative the Petitioner adds to her endeavor, the specifics on 
how it will be realized are absent. Furthermore, it is not clear, overall, how the Petitioner, working as 
a full-time nurse, would allocate her time to implement all these initiatives. Finally, the changes in this 
expanded endeavor are so substantial it may be considered a material change to what was initially 
proposed. A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition 
is filed. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc Comm'r 1998). Thus, as this new evidence does not 
show she is eligible for the benefit sought, the Petitioner does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reopen. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts our prior decision was not aligned with the facts and 
evidence presented. She asserts further that our initial decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy. However, although the Petitioner presents a new expanded plan for her endeavor, 
she does not identify any specific misalignment with the initial evidence or errors in our conclusions 
based on that evidence. Similarly, the Petitioner does not cite any error in our application ofDhanasar 
or specify any other legal error or misapplication of policy in our prior decision. 
2 
The Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen because she has not 
shown her new evidence makes her eligible for the benefit sought. On motion to reconsider, the 
Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3