Date of Decision: November 28, 2023
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Healthcare and Entrepreneurship
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician and Entrepreneur
Field: Healthcare and Entrepreneurship
Nationality: Venezuelan
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Advanced Degree: The petitioner was recognized as meeting the criteria for an advanced degree professional, holding a physician degree from Venezuela.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Importance: The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor in promoting breastfeeding and establishing a nonprofit organization for this purpose has national importance. The Director and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) concluded that while the petitioner’s work has merit, it does not extend beyond her proposed organization to impact the U.S. healthcare system on a national level.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The petitioner proposed to work in the United States to promote breastfeeding by educating, training, and supporting mothers. She also planned to engage in research, publication, and presentation of information regarding breastfeeding and establish a nonprofit organization dedicated to this cause.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The AAO noted that while the petitioner’s endeavor to promote breastfeeding has substantial merit, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate its national importance. The Director acknowledged the petitioner’s intention to broadly impact the field of breastfeeding and healthy eating habits to improve childhood nutrition. However, the evidence provided did not establish that the petitioner’s specific proposed endeavor would have an impact beyond her organization. The business plan lacked specific estimates for job creation or other financial projections, which further weakened the argument for national importance.
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The Director determined that the petitioner is well-positioned to educate mothers on breastfeeding, one aspect of her proposed endeavor. However, the Director found that the petitioner is not well-positioned to operate the proposed nonprofit organization or to conduct, publish, and present research. The AAO agreed with this assessment, noting that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate her ability to advance the proposed nonprofit organization or to produce research with a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system.
On Balance, It Would Be Beneficial to Waive the Requirements of the Labor Certification Process:
This aspect was not analyzed in detail, as the petitioner did not satisfy the national importance prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner submitted a personal statement, business plan, reports, articles, and letters of recommendation. However, these were not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor or that the petitioner is well-positioned to advance it.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The AAO noted that the petitioner’s personal statement and business plan primarily described the importance of breastfeeding in general and the problem of physician shortages in the United States, rather than establishing the importance of the petitioner’s specific endeavor. Additionally, the petitioner’s claim that she would conduct research was mentioned only briefly and was not supported by detailed evidence of the research’s potential impact.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not provided
Business Plan: Provided but lacked specific financial projections and job creation estimates
Advisory Letter: Not provided
Other Supporting Documentation: Included a personal statement, business plan, reports, articles, and letters of recommendation, which were insufficient to establish the broader national importance of the petitioner’s proposed endeavor.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance or that she is well-positioned to advance it. Consequently, she did not demonstrate eligibility for or merit a national interest waiver.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
