dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12796077 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 9, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job off er requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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 . Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available . .. to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offerorforthe petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that 
a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner initially provided a statement indicating that she "seek[s] 
employment as [an] entrepreneur and expert in nutrition in the field of home care for the elderly." In 
addition, the Petitioner claimed that she "intend[ ed] to develop and open am [sic] innovative home care 
agency to offer several home health care services to seniors that alleviate the stress and difficulty in 
maintainingpropernutrition." In response to the Director's noticeofintentto deny(NOID), the Petitioner 
asserted that she "intends to combine her skills in dentistry, overall extensive industty experience and 
[her] deep understanding of nutrition and its effects on dental and overall health" and "intends to develop 
and open an innovative home care agency to offer several home health care services to seniors that 
alleviate the stress and difficulty in maintaining proper nutrition." 
In denying the petition, the Director stated: 
The evidence submitted is insufficient to show the petitioner's endeavor has substantial 
merit because she did not submit a sufficiently detailed description ofher endeavor. While 
providing nutrition and food services to the elderly may generally have substantial merit, 
the petitioner must establish how her particular endeavor has substantial merit. The 
petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of her particular endeavor to establish its 
merit or to show that it has substantial merit. Additionally, the petitioner did not submit 
any documentary evidence to support the facts and data she discussed in her personal 
statementregardingthe nutrition and the need for food assistance in the elderlypopulation. 
In response to the NOID, counsel indicated in the cover letter that nutrition is important 
to leading a healthy lifestyle and cited statistics concerning obesity and discussed other 
risk factors of unhealthy eating habits such as heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, 
osteoporosis, and certain types of cancer. Counsel indicated the link between good 
nutrition and healthy weight, reduced chronic disease risk, and overall health is too 
important to ignore. Counsel indicated that the Mayo Clinic has stated that improper 
nutrition can contribute to several health issues in seniors. However, counsel did not 
provide any evidence to support these statistics or statements .... 
Additionally, [as] the petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed description ofher 
proposed endeavor or sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate her proposed 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
endeavorwill have potential prospective impact , she has not established tha t her particular 
endeavor has national importance .... 
We adopt and affinn the Director's decision with the comments below . See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 
26 l&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015)(citingMatt erofBurbano , 20 l&N Dec. 872 , 874 (BIA 1994) ; see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative 
judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge 
or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order 
reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal , the Petitioner practically makes the same arguments that she made in response to the Director's 
NOID without specifically identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
Director's decision. In fact, her brief is almost verbatim to her NOID response without addres sing the 
Director's findings. Furthermore , the record contains no supporting evidence to corroborate any of the 
Petitioner's statements regarding her proposed evidence. Thus, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
her proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 
As it specifically relates to 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 Dhana sar, 26 l&N Dec . at 889 . Here , the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her providing nutritional and home healthcare 
services rather than the national importance of good nutrition and home healthcare. In Dhana sar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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 . 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Besides her 
unsupported statements , she has not offered sufficient , specific infonnation and evidence to 
demon strate that the pro spective imp act of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
imp ortance. In Dhana sar, we determined that 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. 
Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stand s to suffi cientl y extend 
beyond her agency or potential clients, to impact the dental, nutritio n, or hom e healthcare fie ld or 
indu stry or the U.S. econom y more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects forour nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work , the record does not show that the benefits to the 
U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's dental , nutrition , or home healthcare 
services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
4 
at 890 . Accordingly, the Petitioner 's propo sed ende avor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhana sar precedent decision , the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined inDhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not metthe requisite first prong of theDhanasar analytical frameworlc, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated that she is eligible 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