dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2024 In Re: 29846127 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dietitian and nutritionist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. 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. 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen 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 the 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
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 noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a dietitian and nutritionist, seeks to become a licensed dietitian and nutritionist in the 
United States and open a nutrition clinic. 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 
her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
1 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). 
2 
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, the Petitioner provided 
additional documents including professional plan and statement, business plan, and industry reports 
and articles. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her endeavor. 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has broader 
implications, has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance 
societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm whether her proposed endeavor will have substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously applied the relevant law. The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and instead 
imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also highlights the evidence submitted in support of the 
petition and in response to the RFE to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence and 
contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the noncitizen 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 record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate her company, 
a nutrition and wellness center. Through this endeavor, the Petitioner seeks 
to provide treatment services for children and adults affected by obesity, eating disorders, and physical 
and mental ailments. She states her goal is to enhance the prevalence and effectiveness of treatment, 
ultimately promoting the well-being of individuals. The Petitioner claims that she will successfully 
operate her business due to her extensive work experience and entrepreneurial background. 
The Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because it will generate 
"substantial ripple effects" affecting key commercial and business activities and will serve the business 
development and functions of U.S. companies. The Petitioner submits letters expressing interest in 
investing in her company as well as letters from potential patients, citing the Petitioner's company's 
potential for growth and success in the United States. The Petitioner also submits recommendation 
letters from individuals who attest to her knowledge and experience as a clinical nutritionist. In 
addition, the record includes various industry reports including articles discussing the importance of 
entrepreneurship, nutrition, and the prevalence of obesity in the United States. The record therefore 
demonstrates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor aimed at providing treatments to combat obesity 
has substantial merit. 
Moreover, although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are 
material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed 
extensive experiences as a nutritionist and managing a business are material to Dhanasar 's second 
3 
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. 
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 her proposed endeavor is of national importance, she has not offered 
sufficient 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 include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a nutritionist operating her clinic 
offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence she submitted in support of her 
petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend its benefits beyond her immediate patients and customers to enhance societal welfare on a 
broader scale indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
The Petitioner projects that her proposed endeavor will have hiring phases with the intention of hiring 
two nutritionists, a physical therapist, a mental health therapist, a speech therapist, and one receptionist 
during the first phase, however, the Petitioner has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to 
the regional or national economies resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
While the Petitioner also asserts that her company will hire "several well qualified U.S. workers as 
nutritionists, therapists, and healthcare support," she has not demonstrated that her undertaking has 
implications beyond her employees and customers. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the 
record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on various industry reports in an attempt to establish that her business 
and proposed endeavor hold national importance. She argues that her proposed endeavor will 
"substantially benefit the U.S. business industry, thus impacting societal welfare and economic 
prosperity at large." The record nonetheless does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have 
broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's patients and customers. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not 
4 
sufficiently explained how she will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect 
jobs to move 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. 
The Petitioner reiterates that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because the field of 
clinical nutrition and health will address the widespread issue of obesity in the country and will have 
a significant impact on both the economy and social development. The Petitioner must nonetheless 
demonstrate her specific proposed endeavor of working as a dietitian and nutritionist rather than the 
importance of the national initiatives and interests, industries, or fields. She has not done so. 
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 her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
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 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 
her 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 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. 
5