dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 26, 2024 In Re: 31491338 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nutnt10nist, 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 Petitioner had not 
shown that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest because the record did not establish that the Petitioner proposed endeavor has national 
importance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and 
labor certification requirements. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 qualify for a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 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 U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. 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). 
If 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 T&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. 
Id. 
II. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Director found the Petitioner established she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree as required for EB-2 classification. Specifically, the Director determined the 
Petitioner submitted a copy of a diploma certifying completion of a bachelor's degree and employment 
documents establishing she had, at a minimum, five years of progressive and post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty. 
The record contains a foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree for the Petitioner in nutrition. The 
Petitioner also submitted a Lato Sensu course certification in business administration. The Petitioner 
does not assert this certification is the foreign equivalent of an academic or professional degree above 
a bachelor's degree. Rather, the Petitioner submitted an academic evaluation that equates this 
certification to only half a year of graduate-level study in business administration. As such, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate she holds a qualifying degree above a bachelor's degree that would 
constitute an advanced degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Instead, the Petitioner sought to establish she 
is an advanced degree professional based on her bachelor's degree and five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty. Id. In support, the Petitioner submitted a resume listing nutritionist work 
experience ranging from March 2010 to December 2011, February 2012 to May 2014, and May 2014 
to November 2018. The Petitioner also submitted employment contracts, letters from various 
colleagues, and an employer letter attesting to her work for Iin nutrition from February 
2014 to May 2018, a span of approximately four years and three months. However, evidence of post­
baccalaureate progressive work experience must be in the form of letters from current or former 
employers and encompass at least five years. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Here, the Petitioner 
has not submitted letters from her employers that encompasses a total of five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the degree specialty. In addition, the submitted employee letters do not 
include the name, address, and title of the writer of the letter or a specific description of the duties 
performed by the Petitioner, as required under the regulations. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established herself as an advanced degree professional, and the Director's finding on her eligibility for 
the underlying EB-2 visa classification is withdrawn. 
The Petitioner has not asserted that she alternatively qualifies for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner proposes to start a new company, I I to 
provide nutrition counseling and consulting services inl !Florida. The Petitioner believes her 
education in nutrition and business administration coupled with her nutrition work experience equips 
her to teach clients about nutrition and compliance with health regulations. I intends to work 
with individual clients, including children, seniors, and pregnant women; hospitals; schools, and other 
establishments to develop healthy dietary habits for the U.S. population. The Petitioner plans to create 
a multidisciplinary team atl Ito detect and mitigate malnutrition and support behavioral and 
lifestyle changes. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the 
substantial merit aspect, the initial half of the first prong. 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating the proposed endeavor 
is of national importance. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish her endeavor would 
have a broader impact on the field of nutrition or that its benefits to the economy would rise to the 
level of substantial positive economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred in failing to consider the potential impact of her 
endeavor rather than its geographical breadth, including her planned employment of U.S. workers. 
Our review discloses no such error. The Director has properly considered whether the proposed 
endeavor has sufficiently broad potential implications on the field to establish national importance. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Amongst 
other evidence, the Petitioner resubmits her business plan for I I which reflects intentions to 
employ 17 individuals by its fifth year in business, at a payroll expense exceeding one million dollars. 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor will create financial bridges and prompt economic 
development in the nation's economy. However, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence 
corroborating these employment figures and general assertions. Further, the Petitioner did not meet 
her burden of demonstrating how her projections, even if credible and plausible, result in benefits to 
the regional or national economy to the level of "substantial positive economic effects," as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner further asserts that since nutrition sciences is a field considered part of science, 
technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM), her proposed endeavor fosters progress in a STEM 
field. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner submitted below a DHS STEM Designated Degree 
Program List including the degree of "Nutrition Sciences." The Petitioner contends the Director did 
not properly consider the inclusion of nutrition sciences in a national initiative or the growing demand 
for nutrition professionals in the future. However, a shortage of worker occupations or skills does not 
3 
render the Petitioner's proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. Id. 
Rather, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process. In addition, even if the Petitioner's endeavor lays within a 
STEM field, the evidence must still demonstrate this endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic 
or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, 
but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. On the 
other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial 
merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not 
indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would 
not establish their national importance. Id. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed 
endeavor to provide her professional services to individual clients within a STEM profession aims to 
advance STEM technologies and research or has sufficiently broad implications for the field to 
demonstrate its national importance. Id. 
The Petitioner contends unhealthy diets are causing multitudes of health problems in the United States, 
including obesity, and submits supporting documentation for this contention. The Petitioner claims 
her vision forl Ihas national importance as it would provide a solution for unhealthy eating and 
promote well-being in the population at large. Overall, the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor 
is unique in the field due to her education and years of varied experience in nutrition. The Petitioner 
states her extensive work experience demonstrates her ability to adapt and excel, qualities she would 
bring to the field on nutrition in the United States. However, these assertions regarding the Petitioner's 
education, skills, and expertise relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. But here, the issue is 
whether the specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. In addition, while we do not question the importance of the nutrition industry, 
we focus on the specific endeavor the petitioner proposed to undertake. See id. at 889. Here, for the 
aforementioned reasons, the evidence is not sufficient to show the Petitioner's endeavor is of national 
importance. 
B. Additional Prongs 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 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 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants 
do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). Here, the Director found the Petitioner established she 
is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, in satisfaction of the second Dhanasar prong. 
Our de novo review of the record does not appear to support this finding; we will reserve this issue 
and not further consider the Petitioner's eligibility under this or the third prong as our determinations 
that the Petitioner did not establish he has an advanced degree and did not otherwise satisfy the first 
Dhanasar prong are dispositive of this appeal. 
4 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and has not 
met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5