dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 17, 2024 In Re: 33405831 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, which the Director 
dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the Director's dismissal of the combined motions. 
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. 
Once 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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we emphasize that the Petitioner has not appealed the October 19, 2022, 
denial of the Form 1-140 itself, but rather the Director's subsequent dismissal of her combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider dated January 12, 2024. In the January 2024 decision, the Director concluded 
that the motions did not meet the applicable requirements. Therefore, the question before us on appeal 
is whether the Director erred in dismissing the combined motions. Although the October 2022 denial 
is not before us, we will refer to portions of that decision for a complete review. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. On motion, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter, asking for the October 2022 decision to be reconsidered and for the 
Director to confirm she met the requirements for the benefit. No specific errors in the decision were 
noted nor was any new evidence presented. The Director then denied the motion to reopen because 
the Petitioner had not submitted new facts and did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The Director also denied the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did not articulate a specific 
reason for the reconsideration and did not show their decision was incorrect based on the evidence of 
record at the time of the initial decision. The Director then affirmed her previous decision. For the 
reasons set forth below, we will affirm the Director's decision. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). A motion may be granted that 
satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change 
the outcome). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F .R. § 
103.5(a)(3). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or challenge the reasons for her combined motions being 
dismissed. Instead, she appears to challenge the reasons for the October 2022 denial of her Form 1-
140 and resubmits previously submitted evidence. Thus, the Director's denial of her combined motions 
was appropriate. 
Moreover, the Director's decision to affirm the October 2022 denial was correct. The first Dhanasar 
prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 
proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We therefore "look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting that "[a ]n undertaking may have national 
2 
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. Here, the Director found 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, to open a private practice in psychotherapy, did not reach the 
level of national importance because the petitioner did not show the endeavor would have a substantial 
economic benefit nor did she show it would have a broad impact in her field, beyond her clientele. 
The Director cited to the projected 11 employees by year five of the private practice opening and the 
approximately $877,000 in revenue generated by the endeavor by year five to support the lack of 
prospective impact overall. We agree. The record does not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will 
impact her field broadly in such a way as to be nationally important. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3