dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 18, 2024 In Re: 31570375 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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 and/or an individual with 
exceptional ability, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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). 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
Once eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification is established, a petitioner 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 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, 3 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that she has more than 10 years of experience as a nutritionist, with extensive 
experience in school meals and clinical care focused on weight loss and metabolic disorders, as well 
as pre- and post-operative bariatric surgery. She states that her proposed endeavor is to continue her 
work as a nutritionist in clinical care and in school and hospital meal preparation. She states that, 
through her proposed endeavor, she will meet demand and alleviate a shortage of healthcare 
professionals, provide services to healthcare practices, provide lectures to professionals in the field, 
participate and lead research projects, and improve the overall health of U.S. citizens. 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
4 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree awarded in 2016. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director concluded that, because the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, it was not necessary to evaluate her eligibility 
as an individual with exceptional ability. 
2 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a resume, a 
professional plan describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, an expert opinion letter, and recommendation and support letters. She also submitted industry 
reports and articles discussing the importance of school nutrition and healthy eating in the United 
States. 
Following initial review, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not described her proposed 
endeavor with enough specificity to establish that she met any of the factors under Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver under all three Dhanasar prongs. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated 
resume and professional plan ( dated March 2023), a second expert opinion letter, an additional 
recommendation letter, and certificates of completion for various courses in nutrition and healthcare. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance, that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus 
of the labor certification. 
The Director stated that the record did not include sufficient details about the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or its broad prospective impact. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not identify details 
such as the area where she intends to work or whether she intends to seek a position with an employer 
or serve as an independent consultant. The Director also concluded that, although the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner is qualified to work as a nutritionist, she did not provide specific 
information about her proposed endeavor to establish that she is well-positioned to advance it. 
Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors 
such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the 
United States, the potential creation ofjobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. 
workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred in concluding that her 
professional plans did not provide sufficient detail about her proposed endeavor. In her brief on 
appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence 
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that she merits a national interest waiver. 
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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is in nutrition and 
healthcare. We withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not 
have substantial merit but conclude that her proposed endeavor does not have national importance. 
3 
The relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Id. In Dhanasar, 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. 
The Petitioner submits her professional plan in attempting to support the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the plan presents "an unambiguous 
understanding of her intended activities as a Nutritionist [providing] nutrition services tailored to 
public management of school food service, hospital food service management, and clinical nutrition 
with a focus on weight loss and chronic diseases." 
The Petitioner's professional plan provides general information about her proposed activities, 
including: 
• Managing highly effective school food services. 
• Serving balanced and quality meals to hospital staff and patients. 
• Preparing dietary prescriptions and nutritional guidance to patients before and after 
obesity surgery. 
• Advancing her research on malnutrition in healthcare institutions. 
The plan provides general predictions that the business will "enhance societal welfare and the national 
economy." However, the Petitioner's professional plan provides generalized projections that are not 
specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner states that she will provide "school nutrition consultancy" and will "provide lucrative 
nutrition strategies for U.S.-based companies and support to public agencies." However, the plan does 
not provide detail about how she intends offer her services. The Petitioner does not identify specific 
stakeholders with whom she would collaborate or identify specific events in which she would 
participate to reach clients. Nor does she identify the public agencies she plans to support. 
In her work in hospital nutrition, the Petitioner states that she "will lead a multi-professional team that 
includes cooks and their assistants, butchers, stockists, cleaners, butlers, and nutrition technicians." 
She further states that she will manage human resources, including responsibility for "employee 
uniforms, attendance control, days off, vacations, and interpersonal issues in the work environment." 
However, the Petitioner's professional plan does not include a discussion of how she intends to employ 
and support these workers, including an analysis of wages and benefits. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor also includes scientific research. She states that her proposed 
endeavor "will address the problems identified in the current state of the research." However, the 
Petitioner does not describe her intended research or the problems she intends to address. Nor does 
4 
she discuss where and how her research will be conducted, or how her research will be important to 
the field of nutrition. 
The Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor will "achieve better productivity and profitability 
levels, generate revenues within the country and enhance job creation." However, this statement is 
not supported by independent, objective evidence. The Petitioner's projection of creating jobs is 
generalized and the record does not demonstrate a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
support that her proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states, "The economic impact of [the] proposed endeavor is evident in the growth projection 
of the global nutrition consulting services market." However, as noted above, the Petitioner's 
professional plan does not provide sufficient detail to analyze its potential prospective impact. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor is "different from the work of ordinary 
Nutritionists," she does not explain with sufficient detail how it is different. The evidence does not 
suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in 
the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will 
have broader implications within the field of nutrition, as contemplated by Dhanasar. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands 
to impact the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner submits articles and industry reports discussing the demand for healthcare professionals 
and the overall importance of healthy nutrition in the United States. Although the reports tend to 
support that healthcare and nutrition are national initiatives, the reports do not specifically discuss the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. "In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should 
focus on what the beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (emphasis added). 
Additionally, occupational deficiencies are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process and are not a basis for national importance under the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
When 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." See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although we 
agree that healthy nutrition is important and may be the subject of national initiatives, we conclude 
that this does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. The record contains insufficient information or evidence regarding the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor to show broad potential implications demonstrating national importance. 
The Petitioner also submits recommendation letters from former colleagues, professors and patients. 
We note that the letters describe the Petitioner's duties as a student and professional, rather than 
describing achievements that had broad implications to the field of nutrition or identifying skills that 
differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. While some of 
the letters describe the Petitioner's past accomplishments in her work in Brazil, the authors do not 
explain how these accomplishments translate to a prospective impact on nutrition in the United States. 
The letters praise her qualifications and professionalism, but the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and 
abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
5 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor 
she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
To support the claimed national importance of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner references two 
expert opinions. The record includes an opinion prepared by Dr. I Iof I I 
I I and an opinion prepared by Dr. I I of I I We 
acknowledge that the expert opinions include analyses of the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
In her analysis Dr. I I discusses the Petitioner's academic and professional background. In 
discussing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, Dr. I I states: 
She will provide indispensable guidance at all nutrition fields, and she will continue to 
further her knowledge to better serve the United States. She intends to apply all the 
knowledge she has acquired to help the American population achieve its expected 
results, from weight loss to health and well-being, as well as to the prevention and 
control of chronic diseases that affect people every day. 
While this description lists the general job duties and responsibilities of a nutritionist, Dr.I I does 
not discuss any specific details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Dr.I I does not elaborate 
on how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a prospective impact on the United 
States, including the broad implications on nutrition, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or the 
positive economic effects. Rather, her opinion is general in nature, concluding that, because the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to be a nutritionist, it has national importance. 
Similarly, in his analysis, Dr. I I opines that in performing the duties of a nutritionist, the 
Petitioner will "improve the health of U.S. students, patients and citizens at educational institutes, 
healthcare organizations and private companies by applying her nutritional knowledge and 
experience." However, he also does not discuss any specific details of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or explain how it will have a prospective impact on the United States. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinions are of little probative value as 
they do not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and why it 
would have national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted and asserts that the 
Director erred in concluding that it was insufficient and lacking detail. The Petitioner continues to 
rely upon the asserted demand for the services she will provide, her professional experience and 
achievements, and the importance of the field of nutrition generally. However, as set forth above, the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor's national importance. 
6 
Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude 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 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish its national importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original 
petition and RFE response and does not provide any new evidence. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted 
evidence and explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the three Dhanasar factors and would 
be eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that she meets all of the 
three Dhanasar prongs. 
7