dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20199135 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 8, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nutritionist, seeks second preference 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 asserts eligibility 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; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 
2010). 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. 
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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national to secure a job offer or for the 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 
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 Director also determined that the Petitioner had established that the proposed endeavor met 
the substantial merit portion of the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. The 
Director's decision then provided a well-reasoned explanation as to why the Petitioner does not merit a 
national interest waiver. 
Therefore, upon consideration of the entire record, including the arguments made on appeal, we adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision with the comments below. 4 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney , 26 
I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&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 argues that her employment as a nutrition educator with the State l ___ 
Department of Health is directly related to her proposed endeavor and we agree. She further asserts 
that her work on the _____________ for Women , Infants , and Children (WIC) 
"is of national scope since it is directly funded and monitored by the Federal Government." In 
determining national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake ." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further indicated 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. In this matter , the Petitioner has not established that simply working for a federally funded program 
is sufficient to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis. 5 
In Dhanasar, 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 endeavo r stands to sufficiently extend beyond her 
clients to impact the healthcare industry or the field of nutrition more broad ly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. Nor has she shown that the particular work she proposes to undertake offers 
3 See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 In Dhanasar, while discussing the second prong, we noted the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was 
"the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals" and that be was "the only listed researcher on many of the 
grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record does not show that the Petitioner, rather than the WIC program, obtained (or 
was mainly responsible for obtaining) the funding. 
3 
original innovations that contribute to advancements in nutrition or otherwise has broader implications 
for her field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner also relies on "the fact that she was one of the fust individuals in the entire nation to be 
selected by the Government to but does not sufficiently explain how this 
establishes that her proposed endeavor as a nutritionist is of national importance. Similarly, while her 
work "at governmental vaccination sites and assisting patients" in obtaining the vaccine and the fact 
that she continued to work "her assigned schedule" during the pandemic are admiral, it is unclear how 
such activities demonstrate that her endeavor satisfies the national importance prong under the 
Dhanasar analysis. The Petitioner bears the burden of articulating how they satisfy eligibility criteria. 
See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
In addition, the Petitioner cites to her expertise and record of success in previous projects and the lack 
of qualified nutritionists. First, her education and past experience 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 demonstrated the national importance of her 
proposed work. Second, a nutritionist shortage in the United States does not render her proposed 
endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified 
workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issues. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-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) . 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
she has not established 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4