dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 32291536 
Appeal of Nebraska 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was eligible for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&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 the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 I&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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. 
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. 
Id.. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a 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, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a nutnt10nist who has primarily focused on clinical pediatric treatments and 
interventions. She holds a bachelor's degree in nutrition and has worked as a nutritionist, 
predominantly in hospital settings. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that while the record established that the proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit, the national importance of the endeavor had not been demonstrated 
under prong one. The Director also determined that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the 
job offer requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
2 
A. The Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Her Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision inadequately considered the "vast, 
objective and independent evidence" submitted in support of her Petition. She argues that the industry 
articles submitted before the Director corroborated the national or global implication of her planned 
activities, and she highlights the letters of support she submitted. She contends that the Director 
mistakenly treated this evidence as general support for the importance of nutritionists, when it was in 
fact corroborating evidence for her specific endeavor. The Petitioner stresses that her updated personal 
statement provided in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) highlights "a series of 
activities intended to combat misinformation by working together with medical professionals, clinics, 
school, and community organizations to provide balanced dietary resources for children and program 
participants." 
The Petitioner also takes issue with the Director's analysis of a provided expert opinion, noting that it 
is relevant, probative, and credible. Ultimately, the Petitioner asserts that she has satisfied the 
requirements under prong one of the Dhanasar framework because she has shown a significant 
potential to broadly enhance societal welfare, has shown that she will contribute to the advancement 
of a valuable field of study, and has demonstrated the substantial positive economic impacts of her 
proposed endeavor. 
In support of the endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but 
not limited to: an updated activity plan; an expert opinion discussing her qualifications and eligibility 
for a national interest waiver; affidavits of support from employers detailing her past experience as a 
nutritionist; articles explaining major health crises tied to nutritional deficiencies in the United States; 
reports illustrating how nutritionists can be deployed to combat obesity, diabetes, and other 
noncommunicable diseases; and proof of educational attainment including diplomas, certificates, and 
additional training. 
The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has a prospective potential impact rising 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner's endeavor is to improve the nutrition and overall 
health of people in the United States by continuing her career in nutrition. 2 The Petitioner notes that 
she intends to combat rampant nutrition misinformation, collaborate with healthcare programs and 
schools, and improve health outcomes for patients. The Petitioner highlights that lack of adequate 
nutritional intervention causes significant economic costs in the form of increased noncommunicable 
disease rates, loss of productivity, and healthcare costs. She also stresses that nutritionists are in short 
supply. 
The Petitioner argues that "a petitioner is not required to demonstrate how they will, individually, 
impact their field of endeavor" and argues that the Director misapplied Dhanasar by focusing on the 
endeavor's scope "instead of its potential prospective impact." The Petitioner stresses that she will 
follow a client-based or project-based operational model, but that this does not limit the potential 
2 The Director's decision noted that the Petitioner initially described her endeavor as continuing her care in the United 
States "focusing on the nutrition field, and the pediatric population" but later indicated she would "improve the nutrition 
and overall health of people in the United States." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts there is no meaningful distinction 
between these two descriptions. As the Director's decision does not depend on which of these two formulations are applied 
and instead analyzes the evidence as a whole, we will not address any possible change in endeavor on appeal. 
3 
prospective impact of her planned activities. She contends that requiring petitioners "to demonstrate 
how they can individually impact the country on a national scale" is an impermissible broadening of 
the national importance requirement that would preclude almost all national interest waivers. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to her background, education, and experience in her field. 
The Petitioner also provides several letters of support that discuss her knowledge and experience. The 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field, however, relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 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. 
The Director did not misapply the Dhanasar framework. We see no evidence that the Director denied 
the national interest waiver based on the proposed endeavor's geographic scope. Rather, the Director 
indicated that the proposed endeavor lacked the broader implications outlined in Dhanasar. Id. at 889. 
In particular, the Director highlighted that the proposed endeavor did not stand to sufficiently "extend 
beyond her future employer(s) and patients to impact the nutrition and healthcare field or U.S. 
economy more broadly." 
We agree with the Director that national importance as defined in Dhanasar has not been demonstrated 
in this case. The Petitioner's direct patients and collaborating partners may certainly find the provided 
nutrition education and dietary planning valuable; however, more is required for a national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner highlights the economic benefits from improving nutritional outcomes and 
reducing diseases such as obesity and diabetes. However, she has not demonstrated that her work has 
implications within her field as contemplated in Dhanasar, which highlights possible national 
implications including improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. These or similar 
factors are not present in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the evidence shows that the Petitioner has familiarized herself with the current state of 
nutritional education in the United States, but she has not shown that her endeavor stands to improve 
human knowledge, further research outcomes, or contribute to scientific advancements. Id. Finally, 
the Petitioner has not argued that her proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. The Petitioner's economic arguments, namely that her work will reduce 
healthcare costs and increase productivity, are not accompanied by evidence of the particularized 
economic impact that her endeavor would provide. 
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. We reserve opinion on whether the Petitioner could 
satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. 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 the applicant did not otherwise meet 
their burden of proof). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because she has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5