dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2024 In Re: 34874801 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a clinical psychologist and an entrepreneur, 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 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
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 
1 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
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 that 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, 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 proposes to manage a psychology clinic in I I Florida. The Director found 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 that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus 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. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance, that she is well positioned to advance it, and 
that, on balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously denied the petition. The Petitioner further contends 
that the Director failed to apply the proper standard of proof and instead imposed a novel standard. 
While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
The Petitioner states that through her clinic, she intends to provide comprehensive psychological care 
while overseeing the work of other psychologists. She further states that she plans to deliver high-quality 
mental health services and aims to expand by opening additional clinic franchises. The record includes a 
2 
business plan, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles related to the field of psychology 
and mental health. We conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 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 clinic's 
operations are expected to have substantial economic effects by delivering "high-quality mental health 
services." While the Petitioner claims that her endeavor will "produce significant national benefits 
due to the ripple effects of her professional activities," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her 
undertaking will have implications beyond her patients that rise to the level of national importance. 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. at 376. 
The Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor improves access to essential mental health care and 
promotes societal well-being nationwide. She also contends that her clinic will increase productivity and 
well-being among individuals receiving treatment, which in turn supports economic growth and reduces 
societal costs associated with untreated mental health issues. 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 Petitioner asserts that her clinic will enhance 
societal welfare by promoting mental health awareness, reducing stigma, and fostering a culture of 
psychological well-being. The record nonetheless does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to 
show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor as a psychologist and manager of 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. 
The Petitioner's business plan projects hiring six employees, including herself, by year five, with 
anticipated revenue of $601,596. The Petitioner's plan, however, does not show how these revenue and 
employment projects, even if plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise 
offer substantial positive economic effects for the country. Furthermore, the Petitioner's revenue and 
staffing goals fail to demonstrate that her clinic would provide substantial economic benefits to Florida, 
the region, or the broader U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. For example, 
the Petitioner has not shown that her staffing levels would utilize a significant population of workers in 
Florida or significantly impact job creation or economic growth in the area and beyond. Additionally, 
the record lacks supporting documentation to demonstrate how the impact of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would extend beyond her prospective clients or patients to broadly affect the psychology and 
mental health industry at a level of national importance. Without sufficient evidence regarding the 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future work, the record does 
not show that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor 
3 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
The Petitioner emphasizes the importance of psychologists and notes the shortage of behavioral health 
workers, therapists, and school counselors. 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. Although the Petitioner states her endeavor is of national importance, she 
has not sufficiently explained how her endeavor will positively impact the U.S. economy, offer broader 
implications in the psychology and mental health field, and create direct and indirect jobs to move the 
U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. It is also important to note 
that the shortage of healthcare professionals does not render the Petitioner's 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. 
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 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4