dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 2, 2024 In Re: 30354419 
Appeal of Texas 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for EB-2 classification, but that she had not established 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion,2 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. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Director's request for evidence (RFE) states "the petitioner has established she is an alien of 
exceptional ability .... " The Petitioner provided a U.S. educational equivalency evaluation that 
determined her Brazilian degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree in nutrition. In addition, she 
provided several letters of reference from former employers attesting to her over five years of work 
experience as a nutritionist. As such, we will withdraw the Director's finding that she is an individual 
of exceptional ability, and instead conclude she established her eligibility for EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional, as defined by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
As such, the only remaining issue is whether the Petitioner's endeavor meets the Dhanasar framework 
for a discretionary national interest waiver. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar 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 term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a 
petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of 
work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. For example, while 
engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should describe the specific 
projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, rather than simply listing 
the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Dhanasar 's first prong focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake 
and its "potential prospective impact." Id. at 889. As such, we will first identify the Petitioner's 
2 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). 
2 
endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's evidence in support of the 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is a nutritional consulting company called I I that will 
specialize in "complex nutritional consulting" with the mission to "create a healthier population, 
reduce the incidence of diet-related diseases and promote sustainable practices that benefit both the 
individual and the wider community." She describes the services she will provide as: detailed 
nutritional assessments; development of personalized menus; government program planning; cost 
management; monitoring and evaluation; qualification and training; menu review audit; 
documentation and compliance; policy development; research and scientific studies; and strategic 
partnerships. 3 As such, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. 
Because the endeavor has substantial merit, we tum to whether the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her RFE response "emphatically underscores the pivotal national 
implications of [her] endeavor," and that her company will lead to "transformative changes with 
expansive national and global implications in the health sector," and positively impact the U.S. 
economy, as well as "significantly enhance social welfare without detriment to American workers" by 
improving health outcomes. She also asserts that her endeavor is aligned with government initiatives 
to address hunger and eliminate nutrition-related diseases and health disparities. 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n 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. 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. Here, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her company's services rather than the national 
importance of the field of nutrition. 
The Petitioner's RFE response explains that her endeavor would contribute to healthier diets and the 
United States would save $70.9 billion in medical costs. She also asserts her endeavor will have a 
substantial positive economic effect in economically depressed areas by promoting local 
entrepreneurship, wellness and gastronomic tourism, partnerships with local producers, and qualification 
and training of local professionals.4 On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that her endeavor is a 
3 The offered services are explained in more detail in the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for additional 
evidence (RFE). However, for brevity, we will not explain each service, but have reviewed and have taken the full scope 
of each service into account for purposes of our decision. 
4 The Petitioner's RFE response includes a more detailed description of each of these claimed impacts, however for 
purposes of brevity, we will not describe each one in this decision, but have reviewed and considered each one carefully 
in our decision. 
3 
"transformative methodology with the potential for scalable, national impact." She asserts that her 
endeavor includes nutrition consulting and will also "serv[ e] as a beacon for nutritional excellence and a 
catalyst for healthier, more informed dietary choices across the United States." She maintains that her 
aim is to create ripple effects in the nutrition field through her scalable program. Iwhich 
she describes as a "cutting-edge" initiative that will focus on nutrition education and awareness through 
the use of "... webinars, seminars, social media campaigns,[] community events," mobile apps, online 
courses, and educational materials. She further elaborates that her endeavor includes community-based 
workshops where experts will offer nutritional data, customizable recommendations, as well as online 
tools. She maintains that her endeavor will target a wide range of demographic backgrounds, ages, and 
socio-economic groups. She claims that as these groups improve nutrition, their communities will 
become healthier, and more self-reliant. She further claims that she will focus on providing health care 
professionals with tools and information to become advocates for her "Food is Medicine" philosophy, 
which may lead to a change in the standard of care by incorporating nutritional counseling. She asserts 
that the community impact from her endeavor includes systemic changes in public health and better 
environmental policies, which promote sustainable food systems. She intends to partner with government 
programs (for example, Medicare) to help individuals with diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and heart 
disease. Some of the additional impacts stemming from her endeavor include decreased emergency 
medical events and healthcare costs; increased worker productivity and resilience in communities; and 
improved quality oflife and longevity. She will also implement a program calledl Iwhich 
will introduce fresh, healthy food into students' daily meals. Finally, she asserts that by its fifth year of 
operation, her endeavor will create 18 jobs and have $951,518 in payroll expenses. 
On appeal, she states her endeavor is "rooted in [her] extensive knowledge, academic background, and 
professional experience .... " However, the Petitioner's experience and education in her field relates to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific proposed endeavor has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
The expert opinion letter written by the Director of Dietetic Internship at the 
School of Public Health, emphasizes the Petitioner's "performance in the area of corporate 
development and leadership," and concludes that her work is of national importance. However, as 
stated above, it is not the field or industry but the endeavor that the individual will carry out that must 
be shown to be of national importance. In general, the opinion cites to research and articles that may 
establish the importance of the field of nutrition, and proper nutrition in general, but these studies do 
not relate to the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Moreover, the opinion letter states that the Petitioner 
will provide services in the field of human resources and describes the importance of corporate 
training, which is not consistent with the Petitioner's description of her endeavor. 5 The Director 
concluded the letter lacked relevance because it discusses the importance of the Petitioner's field and 
occupation, rather than the national importance of her endeavor. We agree and note that the additional 
discrepancies in the letter further erode its probative value. See Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (standing for the proposition that we may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory but, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that opinion); see also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (standing for the proposition that 
a petitioner must support their assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence). 
5 We note that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not include human resources or corporate training. 
4 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide nutritional consulting 
and well-being services, s he has not offered sufficient, specific information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. 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 establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond potential customers, or schools or health offices to impact the nutrition and healthcare field or 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner ' s evidence highlighting the United States' need to attract highly skilled 
workers with advanced degrees in STEM fields. Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM 
technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit 
in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. Id. at 890. However, here, the record does not 
suggest that the Petitioner intends to advance STEM technologies and research. Moreover, while the 
Petitioner may offer nutrition and education services to her clients and the healthcare professionals 
she trains, beyond mere assertions, she has not established how her company would affect STEM 
employment levels in her industry or the U.S. economy more broadly. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Finally, 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. Although she projects her endeavor will create 18 jobs by its fifth year of operation, 
she does not sufficiently detail the basis for these staffing projections, nor does she adequately explain 
how the staffing projections will be realized. Id. 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 benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Dhanasar 's Second and Third Prongs 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and 
third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 
that "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). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6