dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychoanalysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2023 In Re: 28446854 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a psychoanalyst , seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or, in the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or 
business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 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. 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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 1, 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each 
piece of evidence, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for 
the 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 determined in Dhanasar 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. 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 stated that she has 14 years of professional experience providing clinical psychoanalysis 
therapy for patients, publishing material in the field and developing programs, and conducting 
specialized research and intervention therapy in school bullying and depression. The Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is to continue her work in the field of psychoanalysis and establish a 
multidisciplinary clinic that would provide a comprehensive psychological therapy network with a 
focus on bullying prevention and recovery. The Petitioner will also give lectures and coach students, 
teachers, and parents on the definition of school bullying, best practices in bullying prevention, and 
appropriate response and treatment. She will also conduct group research in schools and set up 
counseling programs for the victims. The Petitioner stated she intends to combat the nationwide 
problem of bullying by applying her expertise and experience in psychoanalysis. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner explained that bullying affects 
schools and society and is a matter of national importance. The Petitioner further outlined her 
proposed endeavor to include the following activities as: 
• Provide professional psychoanalysis therapy services, including school counseling, 
and antibullying projects. 
• Give access to therapy to people that cannot afford it. 
• Promote self-awareness in children and teenagers. 
• Help children, teenagers, and their families overcome the problems that originate 
from bullying at schools or from other extracurricular activities. 
• Expand her studies in emotional development to continue finding better solutions 
for effective therapy against bullying in the U.S. 
• Diagnose emotional disturbances in children and teenagers to quickly work on 
those emotions and environments to help them neutralize the anxiety and fear that 
come from being bullied. 
• Continue her research on bullying to reach out to more people in the U.S. that can 
relate to this problem and continue finding solutions to prevent it and eradicate it. 
• Teach children the importance of dealing with bullying at school to make it a habit 
to fight it and help other kids that are going through it. 
• Work with families and school faculty/staff to develop effective strategies and 
programs that protect the students from bullying at school and contribute to 
weakening bullying behavior in America. 
• Give lectures to groups of young people and their parents to create a strong 
community that can rely on her experience and advice to strengthen the fight against 
bullying. 
• Work one-on-one with her patients to help them find the best solutions to their 
problems and encourage them not to give up on their goals and life. 
• Present effective anti-bullying projects in schools and communities across the U.S. 
to help decrease the alarming numbers of bullying in schools. 
While the Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he concluded that the 
record did not establish that it has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that bullying is a topic of national concern that affects schools and 
society, and that school shootings can be "traced back to a teenager who had a mental breakdown 
following unmitigated instances of bullying." The Petitioner contends her work will help her patients 
and can "deter a mental breakdown which gone untreated would result in the loss of innocent lives." 
The Petitioner also states she will help patients and their parents, and those individuals will share their 
knowledge to other parents. On appeal, the Petitioner further states that as a psychoanalyst she would 
like to "contribute to the U.S. by helping schools join forces with teachers, principals, and employees 
in the fight against bullying." 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her particular 
3 
counseling services through her business rather than the importance of psychologists or the industry 
or field. In Dhanasar, we 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. 
In addition, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes her experience, skills, and knowledge. The 
Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate 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 endeavor she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
Moreover, 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. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the 
prospective impact of working as a psychoanalyst in a clinic rises to the level of national importance. 
In Dhanasar, we determined 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 through supporting documentation how her specific services stand to sufficiently 
extend beyond her prospective clients or patients, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Although on appeal she emphasizes she 
will assist her patients that could eventually help thwart a mental breakdown and a possible school 
shooting or harm to others, she did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate this claim. The 
Petitioner provided very general notions of national impacts but did not provide specific information 
on how her clinic that services clients in a certain area can actually have a national impact. The 
Petitioner also stated she will work with schools to deal with issues of bullying, but she did not provide 
sufficient information on how she will work as a psychoanalyst and run a clinic while also working at 
schools throughout the country. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how 
the implications of her proposed endeavor to provide counseling services for her clients in her clinic 
rises to the level of national importance. 
Further, 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 operating a clinic, 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. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve 
our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
4 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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 the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5