dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 14, 2024 In Re: 31032031 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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; 
• 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 underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor's Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or 
education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to provide home health care to U.S. 
patients, has substantial merit. Yet, the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the level 
of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is an accomplished nurse with experience in nursing care, 
coordination and leadership of nursing teams, patient-centered care, emergency response, and critical 
care. She intends to develop and expand her own home healthcare services company that will 
"specialize in offering home care services throughout the American territory, serving patients ... [ of] 
all ages (from children to elderly) with all conditions, focusing on eldercare, trauma, palliative care, 
disability care, and [care for] people diagnosed with occupational therapy needs." The Petitioner 
asserts her company will "enable the continuity of hospital treatment within the patient's residence, 
performed by a multi-professional team." The company will "exist as a multidisciplinary home care 
service for patients, their families, and caregivers, covering interventions and guidance related to 
physical, mental, and social health." The Petitioner also indicates that, beyond operating the company, 
she plans to market the business as a franchise model to expand the brand throughout the United States. 
The record includes a five-year business plan outlining the specific services the company would offer, 
which includes patient care from home health nurses, physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational 
therapists, physicians (general and specialist), non-skilled home health care, and remote health 
monitoring. 
In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner also provided a definitive statement, letters of recognition 
from prior colleagues attesting to her expertise in delivering care to patients and coordinating the work 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
of nursing teams, an expert opinion letter, and industry reports discussing the nursing field, the 
changing demands of the medical field in the United States, nursing shortages in the United States, 
and articles detailing the economic importance of immigrants and entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. 2 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner's endeavor would lead to 
broader implications in the field, beyond the direct benefit provided to her prospective patients, or 
otherwise result in economic benefits that would rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director did not apply the correct burden of proof 
and failed to properly consider the evidence establishing her credentials and experience in the field, 
the industry reports establishing the national importance of her endeavor and the shortage of 
professionals within her field, and the potential impact of her proposed endeavor. Generally relying 
on the same arguments previously put forth before the Director, she maintains that the evidence on 
record is sufficient to demonstrate that she meets all three prongs under the Dhanasar framework. 
Notably, the Petitioner also asserts for the first time that her endeavor will generate benefits "to the 
U.S. business and fashion industries, and [provide benefits] to the success of U.S. corporations." As 
the Petitioner does not provide additional support for how her home health services company will 
impact the fashion industry, nor was this previously claimed before the Director, we will not consider 
it for the first time here. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Upon 
de novo review of the record, we agree with Director's evaluation of the evidence, and conclude it 
does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of 
operating a home health care business has national importance as contemplated under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
In Dhanasar we said that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We 
therefore "look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[ a ]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n 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. at 890 
Notably, on appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely on the nursing field and the benefits of home health 
care in general to establish the national importance of her endeavor, but this misapplies the Dhanasar 
framework. When evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we must focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
we recognize the importance of the nursing field, the record does not establish that the prospective 
impact and broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stand to rise to the level of 
national importance. 
In her definitive statement, the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor is of national importance because 
it will alleviate a nationwide health care crisis by closing the gap in the availability of nursing health 
services. Specifically, the Petitioner states she will serve communities in the United States that do not 
have accessibility to visit health care professionals due to lack of insurance, residing in remote areas 
where there is a shortage of medical professionals, or because they face administrative hurdles at 
private practices that prohibit adequate patient care. However, the record does not establish how the 
Petitioner's endeavor will meet these goals. Notably, while the Petitioner's business plan indicates 
that the company will accept payment plans, she also states she will "accep[t] payments through health 
insurance, Medicare and Medicaid." Thus, it is unclear from the record how the Petitioner's endeavor 
will address the gap in treatment resulting from the lack of medical insurance, nor does the Petitioner 
elaborate on how payment plans will alleviate the cost burden resulting from a prospective patient's 
lack of insurance. Likewise, the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor "responds to a national 
shortage of trained, and capable, field professionals," and relies on the shortage to establish the 
national importance of her endeavor. Yet, the Petitioner offers no explanation as to how, given the 
stated shortage, the Petitioner would be able to employ five part-time nurses and five full-time 
physicians, along with several specialist medical professionals within the first five years of operations. 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner proposed to seek out a population without insurance and offer more 
affordable care to alleviate the cost burden addressed, the prospective impact of those services would 
be limited to her prospective patients and would not result in broader implications commensurate with 
national importance. In the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were 
not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the 
Petitioner's prospective patients, like the offerings outlined in the business plan, would not have 
broader implications in the field rising to the level of national importance. Id. 
Similarly, the expert opinion letter and articles containing background information on the health care 
field, aging populations in the United States, and the nursing shortage in particular, are likewise 
insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's company. Identifying a shortage 
of qualified professionals or establishing an industry need does not necessarily render the work of an 
individual endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision. Several of the 
Petitioner's claims of national importance could reasonably apply to any nurse or medical 
professional. Moreover, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Schedule A designation of nurses under 
its regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.16 allows U.S. employers to petition for noncitizen workers without 
first following the regulatory steps to test the labor market prior to filing a permanent labor 
certification. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17. Filing a permanent labor certification under Schedule A requires 
a job offer from a U.S. employer, as the recognized benefit is to that of the employer, not necessarily 
to a broader U.S. interest. 
Additionally, while we recognize the Petitioner has had a long-standing career as a nurse, and has 
developed knowledge critical to the nursing field, her expertise and record of success in previous 
positions are considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has 
4 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work, and 
we conclude that she has not shown that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor, however 
admirable, rises to the level of national importance. 
We also reviewed the expert opinion letter from Dr. P-B-, and conclude it offers little additional 
explanation to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Dr. P-B- does 
not discuss the direct prospective impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or of the offerings 
outlined in her business plan. Instead, they focus primarily on the importance of the nursing and health 
care fields, noting "it is obviously in the national interest to ensure that Americans are able to access 
lifesaving and emergency and preventative care," while offering no analysis or input into the broader 
implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Dr. P-B does not discuss the Petitioner's company 
at all, stating only that she "intends to continue using her extensive knowledge of the safe and efficient 
administration of health care in order to treat patients across the country." USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other 
sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission ofletters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 
2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, 
reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter 
lacks relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's additional claim that her company "is poised to make a significant positive 
economic impact" is not persuasive. According to her business plan, the Petitioner anticipates that, 
by the fifth year of operations, her company will have an annual revenue of $5,411,437.50 resulting 
in an annual federal tax payment of $356,146.17. She also indicated that, in that same time, the 
company will directly employ 66 employees, and generate an additional 330 indirect jobs. Notably, 
the Petitioner provides no explanation for the basis of these revenue and employment projections. Yet, 
even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than conjecture, they do not 
establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance, as the 
Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the 
area of intended operations, nor has she provided evidence that her business operations will impact an 
economically depressed area. Furthermore, the Petitioner relies on a report on "employment 
multipliers" published by the Economic Policy Institute in 2019 to support her assertion of the indirect 
employment resulting from her company's operations; however, the excerpt of the report discusses 
employment in industries "that are heavy users of materials" from other suppliers in the region. The 
Petitioner has not explained how this operational impact is relevant to her home health care services 
company. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the projected economic activity of her proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. 
We also note that the Petitioner indicated that she plans to initially operate her business from 
Massachusetts which is designated as a Small Business Administration HUBZone and asserts her 
business operations will result in "improvement of the wages and the working conditions for U.S. 
workers, and hel[p] the local community bring investments to the region." However, the record does 
not contain evidence establishing the company's physical location. Not only has the Petitioner not 
5 
offered sufficient evidence that her business will in fact be in a HUBZone, but more importantly, she 
has not established that she would qualify 3 for the program. Moreover, the record does not show that 
the prospective employment in this designated underutilized business zone would have positive 
economic effects commensurate with national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. For 
example, the Petitioner does not explain how the proposed employment of five full-time physicians 
with an annual salary of $85,000 or five part-time nurses earning an annual salary of $35,000 would 
result in the "improvement of wages and the working conditions for U.S. workers" as claimed. 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact have little probative 
value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency 
need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would be 
of national importance, and she therefore does not meet the requirements of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Since the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor, the 
resolution of that issue by itselfrequires dismissal of her appeal. But because the Director's decision 
made specific conclusions about the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong, we will 
discuss whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Director concluded the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, noting 
that "the record identifies the beneficiary's education, more than 15 years of experience, business plan, 
letters of support, nursing license and certification." Upon de novo review, we withdraw the Director's 
conclusion. 
In evaluating whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the 
second prong of Dhanasar, we review (A) a petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of 
success in related or similar efforts; (B) a petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the 
proposed endeavor that the individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; (C) any 
progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and (D) the interest or support garnered by the 
individual from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or persons. 
While we recognize that the Petitioner's education, experience, and letters of recommendation 
demonstrate her extensive experience in the field of family health, coordinating and directing the work 
of nurses, and leading several vaccination campaigns on behalf of the government, simply having 
education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their 
proposed endeavor. Additionally, while the Petitioner provided a copy of her application submitted 
to the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CFGNS) to obtain her Massachusetts 
nursing license, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that she has obtained this license, contrary to 
the Director's conclusion. 
3 There are several required qualifications to participate in the program, including that the business seeking to participate 
in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an 
agricultural cooperative, an Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. 
6 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not carried her burden in establishing that her prior experience working 
in nurse management positions makes her well-positioned to create and operate her home health care 
company, nor has she provided any evidence to establish she has taken steps to incorporate the 
company. Similarly, the record does not establish the Petitioner's ability to begin operations. 
According to the business plan, the Petitioner will provide 50% of the initial $100,000 investment 
necessary to begin operations, and her brother, Mr. W-L-, will provide the remaining $50,000. The 
record contains a letter from Mr. W-L- confirming his intention "to invest $50,000 in the business in 
the first year," along with evidence of a commercial line of credit issued to Mr. W-L-'s private 
company in the amount of $50,000. The record does not contain evidence of the Petitioner's ability 
to invest the remaining $50,000, nor is Mr. W-L-' s letter of intent legally binding. As such, the record 
does not corroborate the Petitioner has obtained the necessary investment. 
So, the Petitioner has not demonstrated with sufficient material, relevant, and probative evidence that 
they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first or second prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. Since the identified reasons for denial are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility under 
Dhanasar's third prong. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reached"); 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7