dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 16, 2024 In Re: 31318714 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nutntlonist, 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 a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to work as a nutritionist in the United States and assist clients in private practice. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner indicated on his Form 1-140 that he sought to pursue the job of"nutritionist," which 
would entail "[h]elp[ing] people create eating plans that are realistic, sustainable, and healthy .... 
[N]utritionists work with each client individually to create plans specifically for their situation." The 
Petitioner also submitted documentation - a professional plan - that detailed his experience in the field 
and his intent to work as a nutritionist both in private practice and for other businesses. The Director 
issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of how the 
proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
claimed, through counsel, that he planned to work as a nutritionist and provide his services in catering 
and quality control, clinical and sports nutrition, management services, and community education. He 
also provided additional documents including his academic record and resume, a professional plan, 
employment verification letter, professional identification card, letters of recommendation and 
interest. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Petitioner had not clearly established what exactly 
his proposed endeavor entailed. The Director determined it was not apparent whether the nutritionist 
functions outlined in his petition will be conducted independently, as a contractor in connection with 
a business in the United States, or as a potential employee of some other business. The Director 
concluded that although Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not 
establish his proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, and thus 
did not establish its national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it 
will have a positive social and economic impact, addressing important issues such as the reduction of 
diseases related to poor diet. The record contains letters from potential employers who have seen his 
resume, expressing interest in scheduling interviews or connecting further regarding possibly working 
with him in the future. The Petitioner also submits letters from individuals who attest to his knowledge 
and experience as a nutritionist. In addition, the record includes various industry reports including 
2 
articles discussing the importance of nutrition and the prevalence of diet-related illnesses in the United 
States. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact and "broader implications." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances. Id. An endeavor may also be of national importance if it has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area. 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 the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, he has not offered sufficient 
information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. This is particularly trne where, as in the Petitioner's case, we are 
unable to determine the exact nature of the proposed endeavor. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor 
has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such 
claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
A determination of whether a specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong 
focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. Evidence of the Petitioner's claimed 
extensive experience, qualifications, and achievements as a nutritionist are material to Dhanasar 's 
second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they 
are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance. See id. at 888-91. The Petitioner also relies on various 
industry reports to establish that his proposed endeavor holds national importance. As previously 
mentioned, in determining 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." Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner claims he will "improv[ e] public health, reduc[e] healthcare costs, and ensur[e] a 
healthier future for the nation" and further argues that his proposed endeavor "has the potential to 
reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases, improve productivity, and contribute to a healthier, more 
vibrant workforce, which directly benefits the nation's economy and overall well-being." While the 
Petitioner asserts that his work will have a broad impact in the United States, the record does not 
include adequate corroborating evidence of what the Petitioner's proposed work entails or demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend its benefits beyond his immediate clients and 
customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. The 
Petitioner has also not sufficiently explained how he will positively impact the U.S. economy on a 
broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that 
the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would rise 
to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
3 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of his 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 
his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that he has not established that he 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