The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the healthcare industry, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 as an advanced degree professional, she did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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.
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, 2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- 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.
In the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner initially described her endeavor as working as a nursing instructor and teacher, to "[b] ]oth teach[] and research[] patient care in classroom and clinical units for nursing students." However, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner revised her proposed endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner proposed to establish a medical and healthcare training company in Florida. In the business plan, the Petitioner stated she will be the chief executive officer and chief operating officer of the company and that the company will be "geared towards refining the skills and ethical standards of healthcare professionals, catering to a diverse range of individuals and healthcare organizations" and "will offer a comprehensive array of short and long-term courses, both virtually and in-person." In addition, the Petitioner claimed that her company will make "a profound national impact by addressing skill gaps and nurturing a highly skilled workforce capable of delivering exceptional patient care." As a preliminary matter, we find that the Petitioner has materially changed her proposed endeavor from the time of submission to the RFE.Tried to change the endeavor after filing Owning a business and working as a nursing instructor and teacher are two different undertakings even when they are in the same healthcare education field. The knowledge and skills required to manage and operate a business are different from the skills an employee within a company would need, though both require healthcare knowledge. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1988). Accordingly, we conclude that the focus ofher endeavor has materially changed. If significant material changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b )( 1 ). For these reasons, the petition may not be approved.
Nevertheless, the Director has acknowledged and analyzed all ofthe evidence the Petitioner submitted initially and in response to the RFE including her business plan, support letter, an opinion letter from a professor, a letter of commercial intent, a letter of intent to invest, and published material regarding immigrant businesses, shortage of nurses, nursing education, and healthcare professional training. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact ofher proposed endeavor would rise to the level ofnational importance. That is, the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would stand to sufficiently extend beyond her future clientele to impact the healthcare industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Or in other words, the evidence in the record also does not support the national importance of the materially transformed version of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the documentary evidence previously submitted demonstrates the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner discusses her business plan and highlights the evidence previously submitted. Moreover, the Petitioner continues to claim that her proposed endeavor will address the "shortage ofhealthcare professionals through targeted educational p. 3 programs, improv[e] healthcare accessibility and quality in underserved areas, and driv[ e] economic revitalization in economically depressed regions."
Regarding the shortage of healthcare professionals, a national shortage of healthcare professionals is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor.Relied on a labor shortage Further, the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process.
In support of her endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner highlights staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan projecting that her company will create 54 direct jobs, pay wages of over $7 million, generate over $9 million in total net income, and pay over $450 thousand in income taxes, all within its first five years of operation. Importantly however, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the record does not support that the creation of 54 additional jobs in this sector or the expected revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Moreover, while the Petitioner states her company "aims to establish training centers and operational facilities in areas that are economically depressed and under-sourced," the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the area where her company intends to operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or related tax revenue. While the intention is meritorious, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support these claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.
In Dhanasar, we determined the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to a level of national importance because the duties did not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Likewise, the Petitioner here has not established how providing her healthcare training services stands to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.No broader implications shown We acknowledge that the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor is "a catalyst for economic and social regeneration" and "not only fosters economic development but also brings about significant improvements in social conditions, contributing to a healthier, more resilient society." The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed business activities 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 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 industry 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 also notes that her proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives, including the Affordable Care Act. However, merely working in an important field or profession is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Id. at 889. Instead, when determining p. 4 whether the proposed endeavor has 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." Id. Thus, while we acknowledge that the healthcare industry is important, this fact is insufficient to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we need not address her eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 3 The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that she meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.