dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2024 In Re: 34815572 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse practitioner, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 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. § 
1153(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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that she merited a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion, under the three-prong 
framework outlined in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first highlights the fact that the Director did not provide an analysis of 
whether she met the requirements of the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework, asserting 
that she was not given "a fair opportunity to contest the decision" and that she "should be able to 
understand the grounds for denial clearly enough to be able to address these points" on appeal. She 
references Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain 
the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). The Petitioner also references 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), which provides 
that an officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner 
a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. 
Here, the Director addressed the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar, stating that 
because the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor, she has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, and that further analysis of her eligibility under 
the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. By way of explanation, because the 
identified reasons for denial were dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework may be, and were, reserved. 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); see also Matter ofL-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). The fact that the Petitioner was found ineligible under the first Dhanasar prong 
precluded her eligibility for a national interest waiver, regardless of her qualifications under the 
remammg prongs. 
The Petitioner's second point on appeal turns generally to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
She submits evidence previously submitted, as well as documentation from 2024 showing her honor 
society membership induction. We observe that, because the honor society material post-dates the 
filing date of the petition, it is not relevant to demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility, as this must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 
175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (stating that a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the self­
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts). The Director concluded in the denial notice that 
the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor, and on appeal the 
Petitioner reiterates her purported qualifications and cites evidence previously included in the record. 
The Petitioner, however, does not address specific conclusions reached by the Director in determining 
that her proposed endeavor did not reach a level of national importance, nor does she articulate any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in that determination. 
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). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the evidence of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to operate a home healthcare business in 
the United States. In accordance with the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions 
provided in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), the Director considered how the 
evidence submitted served to establish whether or not the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had both 
substantial merit and national importance. 1 While the Director determined that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, the Director properly concluded that the Petitioner's 
endeavor did not reach a level of national importance to warrant a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
As discussed, the Petitioner provides no indication on appeal as to why this determination on the part 
of the Director was in error. 
1 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on the three evidentiary prongs used to evaluate whether an 
individual qualifies for a national interest waiver. 
2 
In conjunction with the foregoing analysis, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. The petition 
will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3