dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Veterinary Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2024 In Re: 29137101 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a veterinarian, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 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; 
1 See also 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). 
• 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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor is opening a company that will provide high-level clinical and 
veterinary care services to K9 detection dogs that are involved in the prevention and repression of 
crimes and that require specialized care to maintain their health and performance. The services 
provided by this company will be offered to various organizations such as law enforcement agencies, 
customs, airports, train and bus stations, postal services, border patrols, county jails and prisons, 
private establishments, universities, stadiumsl casinos, theme parks, hotels, resorts, and public parks. 
She will establish a medical office i~~--~ Florida to provide services such as client consultations 
on animal treatment and rehabilitation, animal vaccination, medical exams, and sample collection. 
The Petitioner contends that her company will help the performance of detection dogs that will in tum 
help their critical mission in keeping people safe and secure, provide affordable veterinary services, 
create jobs, and revenue growth for a small business. 
The Director concluded the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously denied the petition under 
the preponderance of the evidence standard and instead imposed evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations. The Petitioner submits a brief which generally reiterates the benefits 
of her profession and her qualifications and contends that she has established the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor. 3 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that her proposed endeavor has national importance because she 
intends to continue working in a STEM field, which has been recognized as of national importance by 
the federal government. The Petitioner also notes that her degree is on the list published by the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the DHS STEM Designated Degree Program List. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The record supports that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to address the health and well-being of animals, 
has substantial merit. The Petitioner provided information that there is a demand for the profession of veterinarians in the 
United States. She discusses the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy, and the importance of fostering 
businesses in the STEM field. We conclude that the record shows the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2 
The Petitioner's assertion that her proposed endeavor has national importance because she intends to 
continue working in a STEM field is misplaced. "With respect to the first [Dhanasar] prong, as in all 
cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A STEM 
endeavor that is not indicative of an impact in the particular field of STEM more broadly would not 
establish its national importance. See id. Therefore, whether the proposed endeavor is in a STEM 
field or is listed on the DHS STEM Designated Degree Program List are not dispositive-the 
Petitioner must still establish that the proposed endeavor would have an impact in the field of STEM 
more broadly or have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See 
id.; see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which 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. As it relates to the 
Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than the 
importance of veterinarians, K9 detection dogs, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration. 4 
Further, "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. The broader implications of the proposed endeavor, national and/or international, 
can inform us of the proposed endeavor's national importance. That is not to say that the implications 
are viewed solely through a geographical lens. Broader implications can reach beyond a particular 
proposed endeavor's geographical locus and focus. The relevant inquiry is whether the broader 
implications apply beyond just narrowly conferring the proposed endeavor's benefit. And 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. 
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. 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. We recognize the 
overall value of the veterinary medicine industry, attracting STEM talent, and strengthening our 
nation's veterinary services. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific 
undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients she would serve, or that her 
proposed work would otherwise have broader implications for the veterinary medicine industry or 
initiatives. For example, she does not claim, and the record does not establish, that her plans to 
introduce novel methodologies or medical advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by 
others operating in the field or industry, or otherwise articulate how she will contribute to research and 
development of our nation's veterinary medicine. Here, the record does not show through supporting 
documentation how her specific company that provides veterinary services to K9 dogs stand to 
4 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
3 
sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Although the Petitioner contends that her 
business will generate revenue and create employment opportunities, this does not rise to the level of 
national importance. 
It is also unclear from the evidence in the record whether the work of a single veterinarian or one clinic 
providing veterinary services, irrespective of its success or failure, would have a significant impact on 
the field beyond its immediate sphere of influence. The evidence in the record does not highlight how 
the prospective potential impact of the work of one professional or group of professionals m a 
veterinary clinic could have broader implications implicating the national interest. 
The Petitioner tries to highlight the broader implications of her endeavor by linking it to the importance 
of maintaining the health ofK9 detection dogs but while the health and welfare of working dogs holds 
merit, the record does not sufficiently describe how the "ripple effects" of the care of K9 dogs 
implicate the greater national interest. The provision of veterinary services directly benefits only those 
individuals with detection dogs availing themselves of the Petitioner's services. This is akin to how 
the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to the students being taught and 
not the wider population. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of 
education broadly in a manner rising to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension activities 
which only benefit a small subset of individuals and their pets, like the Petitioner's proposed veterinary 
clinic would not rise to a 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. We reviewed the Petitioner's business plan. The business plan makes various 
projections that the company will purportedly achieve in five years, such as increasing the sales 
forecast from $264,000 in year one to $818,400 by year five and providing a total payroll of $436,178 
by hiring 7 employees. However, the plan does not provide sufficient detail of the basis for these 
projections, or adequately explain how these sales and staffing targets will be realized. Although the 
Petitioner indicated she will provide veterinary services to K9 dogs, the business plan lacks specific 
information regarding K9 dogs in th~ ~ Florida area. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In 
addition, the record does not indicate that the location of the business and its proposed operations is 
an economically depressed area. 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 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 third prong 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 prong. 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 of L-A-C-, 
4 
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