dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 14, 2024 In Re: 31509053 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2). The Director of the Texas Service 
Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not established eligibility for 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 l&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. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determine on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
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). 
The Petitioner intends to train health professionals to implement tools provided by neuroscience to 
evaluate, diagnose, and rehabilitate athletes struggling with their mental health through a program 
calledl I The endeavor will build upon the Petitioner's extensive experience with clinical 
neuropsychology, cognitive training, and neuropsychological rehabilitation to protect the mental 
health of athletes in the United States. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director examined the letters of support for the national 
importance prong instead of the public documents. The Petitioner contends that the public documents 
submitted, including studies published by the National Center for Biotechnology and ScienceDirect, 
establish the critical need for her services and that in examining the incorrect evidence to support the 
first prong of the Dhanasar analysis, the Director's determination is in error. 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may 
be shown in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, 
or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, providing mental health services to athletes, has substantial merit. 
However, while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the record 
does not indicate that it has national importance. 
In analyzing 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. Although the Petitioner 
contends that the many documents from federal agencies and media showcase the critical need to 
address traumatic brain injuries, the matter here is not whether these initiatives, as well as the mental 
health of struggling athletes are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the 
national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of promoting the mental health of athletes, 
furthering research on concussions in sports, and contributing to employment of professionals in 
neuropsychology. Likewise, the Petitioner's submission of research noting the importance of 
diagnosis and the Bi den Harris administration's current emphasis on mental health cover mental health 
disorders in general, rather than establishing the national importance of her particular professional 
services and business. 2 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. The Petitioner contends that her endeavor,! I is nationally 
important because it has the potential to reduce the significant annual costs of sports injuries in colleges 
and high schools. Yet, the Petitioner does not provide support for these assertions and continues to 
rely on the importance of the psychology field in general, claiming for example, that the endeavor will 
"support government efforts to mitigate the shortage of trained professionals in the field of mental 
health." However, this misapplies the Dhanasar framework. As previously discussed, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner also maintains that her proposed endeavor "will train professionals in the mental health 
and neuropsychology field, generating more employment opportunities for them, which clearly aligns 
with the government's current need to meet the strong demand for trained professionals in the mental 
health field." However, the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render her 
proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of 
qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor 
certification process. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not explain how her mental health services and research in high impact 
sports-related injuries have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. While the Petitioner continues to make general claims 
concerning the health and overall performance of athletes, and the employment of trained 
professionals, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or demonstrate how her particular proposed 
endeavor would have any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation. For example, she did not 
explain with sufficient detail how she would conduct research and launch the proposed services on a 
scale of national impact. It is noteworthy that the Petitioner does not discuss or document any previous 
experience undertaking a similar high impact project, or detail how the project would be conducted 
and expanded nationwide. Without such evidence, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from her services and how the endeavor would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3