dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Veterinary Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 33363750 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the veterinary field, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 I&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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
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. The 
first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the 
submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 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. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated in her definitive statement that she intends to 
"continue using my expertise and knowledge to work as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Entrepreneur 
managing and operating my own company, thereby contribute [sic] to the U.S. economy in the Veterinary 
Services Industry. I will do this by developing and expanding my business in the nation, I I 
_______ a small animal medical and surgical clinic, which will provide veterinary services 
like general consultation, simple and complex surgery, and X-rays performed by well-qualified 
professionals. It will be a modem veterinary clinic with surgery facilities." The Petitioner provided a 
similar description of the company in her business plan. The Petitioner's business plan provides that her 
first office would be inl IFL, and two more branches would open in 
FL. 
In addition to the above documents, the record includes, but is not limited to, articles and industry 
reports about veterinarians and the role of immigrants in the workforce, and information from O*NET 
OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics related 
to chief executives. Lastly, the record includes company records, an expert opinion letter, a financial 
forecast, letters of recommendation, education records, a resume, and immigration records. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed work as a CEO in the field 
of veterinary medicine offers benefits that extend beyond her company to impact the field more 
broadly, and the Petitioner did not establish the level of projected employment would have the 
potential to provide substantial positive economic effects to the region the business is in or the nation. 
Finally, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective 
endeavor's potential prospective impact, including broader implications, or national or global 
implications within the field; significant potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or 
broad enhancement of cultural or artistic enrichment. Therefore, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erroneously imposed a stricter standard of proof With 
respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each eligibility 
requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely than 
not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically identify statements in the 
Director's decision applying a higher standard of proof or imposing novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the Dhanasar framework. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide veterinary services to her company's future 
clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its clientele 
to impact her field, the veterinary industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner references criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed endeavor has 
national importance and asserts that the standard of national importance was incorrectly applied by the 
Director. The Petitioner states that the employment of workers through her proposed endeavor may have 
national importance even if it is limited to one geographic area of the United States. Regarding future 
staffing, the Petitioner stated that her company will generate 14 jobs in the first year, and after five 
years it will have around 4 7 full-time employees, 45 part-time employees, and 28 contractor 
employees. The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that in the first year the company will have a 
revenue of $807,500. The business plan is inconsistent in listing the projected revenue after five years. 
On page 12, it lists total revenue of $3,215,000, but the conclusion section and the Petitioner's 
definitive statement provides total revenue of $9,012,000. The Petitioner must resolve this 
inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner did not provide evidence 
supporting the need for these additional employees and the revenue projections are not supported by 
details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved. The Petitioner states that 
the software her company is going to develop will help the clinic provide information on current and past 
patients and will map potentially endemic areas for pathology in Florida. The Petitioner does not provide 
sufficient detail and establish how software containing information on her patients has national 
importance. The Petitioner mentions that her proposed endeavor has national importance due to 
improving societal welfare. She states that her proposed endeavor has national importance for the United 
States as her business will focus on disease prevention and control, including salmonellosis which is a 
public health problem. The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that 
her veterinary business would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is 
insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has 
3 
the potential to positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her 
field or to generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate 
or in other parts of the United States. 
The Petitioner states that the Director erroneously equated the lack of geographical implication and the 
lack of potential to employ U.S. workers as failure to show national importance and disregarded the other 
criteria for establishing national importance. We disagree with this claim as the Director noted that the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the prospective endeavor's potential prospective 
impact, including broader implications, or national or global implications within the field; significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers; substantial economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed field; broad enhancement of societal welfare; or broad enhancement of cultural or artistic 
enrichment. 
The Petitioner mentions that veterinarians ensure the health of the human and animal population, and 
their work is fundamental to the development of humanity in scientific, nutritional, and health terms. The 
Petitioner states that demand for veterinary services has increased due to increased pet ownership, the 
prevalence of pet health insurance, and longer lifespans of animals. The Petitioner previously submitted 
articles and industry reports about veterinarians and the role of immigrants in the workforce, and 
information from O*NET OnLine and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment 
and Wage Statistics related to chief executives. The issue here is not the national importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; rather we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner states that her company will generate direct and indirect jobs, generating a multiplier effect 
of opportunities and business for the U.S. economy. She states that her proposed endeavor does more 
than generate income for private companies and individuals, rather it improves the monetary output of 
the U.S. economy by creating financial bridges and promoting economic development. The Petitioner, 
however, has not sufficiently shown her business's purported ripple effects on the U.S. economy. She 
does not adequately explain what the impact on the national economy would be, and the record does 
not establish that her company would have sufficient size or scope to substantially affect the nation's 
economy or employment rate. The Petitioner has not shown 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. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future 
staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the 
United States. She has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, she 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 
4 
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. 
5