dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Engineering And Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 23, 2024 In Re: 33398399 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, 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 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 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 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 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 ofDhanasar, 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: 
• 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. 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
Id. 
TI. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner proposes to obtain a position as a researcher in the research and development sector of 
the following fields; the Petitioner asserted he plans to "develop state-of-the-art biomedical 
instruments in order to create accurate and efficient technologies that improve patient outcomes" and 
also pursue "augmentation of technology in ECMO, the development and deployment of a novel 
sensor capable of swiftly detecting a range of hazardous bacteria... as well as an exploration of 
automation techniques, specifically with regards to cybersecurity in the context of connected 
autonomous vehicles." 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of framework for adjudicating national interest waivers, substantial merit and national 
importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
Id. at 889. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, we 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. 
In response to the initial evidence submitted by the Petitioner, the Director issued a request for 
evidence (RFE). In part, the Director noted the expert opinion letters contained in the record do not 
address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in the United States or demonstrate that such 
endeavor would have potential prospective effects that rise to the level of national importance. The 
Director also found the submitted articles and industry reports to constitute background information 
that, similarly, do not address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States. 
In the denial decision, the Director reiterated that both the articles and industry reports previously 
submitted and subsequently submitted in response to the RFE provided useful background information 
related to the "healthcare worker challenge and shortage, surgical errors, COVID-19 guidance, and 
government identified critical and emerging technologies and established the need to reduce healthcare 
worker burnout and staff shortage and the importance to mitigate surgical errors and prevent disease 
exposures," and established the general importance of the cybersecurity industry and electrical 
engineering fields. However, these documents were again not found to address the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor or demonstrate how this endeavor would mitigate the concerns raised in 
2 
those documents at a level commensurate with national importance. Overall, the Director found that 
the Petitioner did not submit additional evidence that addressed the deficiencies noted by the Director 
in the RFE. 
On appeal, Petitioner's counsel asserts the Director erred by employing a standard of proof that 
exceeds the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard and failed to consider all relevant 
evidence. Specifically, counsel asserts that under Dhanasar, the submitted articles and industry 
reports, even if not related to his specific proposed endeavor, are relevant to determining national 
importance. Counsel also asserts the Petitioner demonstrated national importance by submitting a 
clear statement of his proposed endeavor, including the three projects he intends to pursue, and 
provided evidence highlighting the importance of specific fields directly implicated by his endeavor. 
However, the Director explicitly considered and weighed the Petitioner's articles, industry reports, 
and personal statement in analyzing the first Dhanasar prong. As stated above, the Director indicated 
the submitted articles and industry reports provided useful background information, in part for 
identifying relevant fields of critical and emerging technologies. The Director also directly cited the 
Petitioner's personal statements, in his initial filing and RFE response, in identifying the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. As such, our review of the record reflects the Director considered the relevant 
evidence under the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. While the Director found the 
Petitioner's evidence established the importance of general fields related to the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, the Director also determined the Petitioner did not explain or provide evidence 
demonstrating the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, the relevant 
question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work but on 
the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
We concur with the Director that the evidence of record does not detail and establish how exactly the 
Petitioner's proposed research will result in broader implications for his field. As stated, on appeal, 
the Petitioner's counsel generally asserts the proposed endeavor "is focused on advancing biomedical 
instrumentation, cybersecurity in healthcare and [ the Internet of Things] and fortifying Industrial 
Control Systems (ICS)" and states "[t]his initiative aims to address critical gaps in technology, 
especially during emergency situations like the COVID-19 pandemic." We note the assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) 
( citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Overall, the Petitioner does 
not sufficiently explain his particular proposed innovations or how they will advance or have broader 
implications in the field, at a level reaching national implications. The record also does not otherwise 
establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have 
substantial positive economic effects; the Petitioner does not make any related assertions or provide 
any related evidence. As such, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information to establish his 
proposed endeavor is nationally important. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied prong one of 
the Dhanasar framework to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve his arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the 
3 
second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
( stating that "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 of L-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 the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4