dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2025 In Re: 37188581 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a biomedical scientist and clinical pathology technician, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 
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. 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 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional because she submitted evidence of her bachelor's degree in biomedicine and five years 
of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in her field. We agree. The only issue on appeal is 
whether the Petitioner qualifies for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
In her business plan for her proposed company, _________ the Petitioner states the 
company will be based in I I Alabama and will offer specialized biomedical analysis, 
laboratory management services, and advanced training programs, and will cater to a diverse clientele 
including healthcare providers, hospitals, research institutions, and individual patients seeking high­
quality diagnostic services. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. Id. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. We agree. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other 
substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has 
other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. The Director determined the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic 
effects or broadly impact her field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erred and claims she submitted evidence that establishes 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner first claims that her company's 
planned strategic partnerships with educational institutions, hospitals, research centers, and 
biotechnology companies will foster the exchange of knowledge and technology thereby enhancing 
national health standards and strengthening the biomedical sector in the United States. The Petitioner 
does not specify, however, how her company's collaborations would extend beyond individual entities 
to impact her field more broadly on a level commensurate with national importance. 
Second, the Petitioner asserts that her company's use of next-generation sequencing and big data 
analysis contributes to national priorities of technological advancements in healthcare. The Petitioner 
does not cite any evidence submitted with the petition or on appeal to support her claim that next­
generation sequencing and big data analysis are "cutting-edge practices that will set new standards in 
the field" or otherwise have national implications in her field. See id. at 889 (discussing improved 
2 
manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even global implications 
within a particular field). 
Third, the Petitioner claims her company will strengthen biomedical infrastrncture in the United States 
by improving the quality and accuracy of laboratory diagnostics. The Petitioner's business plan 
conveys the company's intention to invest in state-of-the-art equipment and software, but does not 
indicate how the company's use of such equipment and software would extend beyond her company's 
clientele to impact her field more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. 
Fourth, the Petitioner asserts her company would address the shortage of qualified professionals in 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), specifically laboratory sciences, 
through its training programs. The Petitioner claims that by partnering with local educational 
institutions, the company will create a pipeline of skilled professionals ready to enter the healthcare 
industry. The Petitioner does not submit evidence of how many professionals her company would 
train or that this number would significantly address the shortage of qualified professionals in her field 
at a level commensurate with 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. Similarly, here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
her company's training programs would extend beyond the program participants to impact her field 
more broadly in a manner indicative of national importance. 
Fifth, the Petitioner claims her company's commitment to public health advocacy aligns with national 
health initiatives such as "Healthy People." However, simply working in area of national significance 
does not show that a proposed endeavor has national importance. Our assessment of national 
importance does not focus on the importance of a field in general, but instead "focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. 
Sixth, the Petitioner asserts her company will enhance social welfare by providing low-cost or free 
diagnostic services to vulnerable communities and reduce healthcare disparities. The Petitioner does 
not demonstrate that her company's services would extend beyond individual clients to significantly 
impact vulnerable communities on a level indicative of national importance. 
Seventh, the Petitioner claims that by fostering innovation, job creation, and economic growth, her 
company will help diversify the U.S. economy making it more resilient and better equipped to face 
future challenges in healthcare. The Petitioner cites no evidence to support this claim. The Petitioner's 
business plan projects her company will have a net profit of $62,608 the first year, increasing to $1, 
436,718 in the fifth year. The Petitioner did not submit evidence of how such profits would be 
considered significantly high in comparison to other biomedical laboratories or would otherwise have 
a substantial positive economic effect in her industry commensurate with national importance. 
Eight, the Petitioner asserts her company will contribute to national health security by providing 
molecular diagnostics and rapid testing. The Petitioner does not demonstrate how her company's 
services would extend beyond individual clients to impact health security on a level indicative of 
national importance. 
3 
Ninth, the Petitioner claims her company will positively impact economically depressed areas by 
creating direct and indirect jobs. The Petitioner's business plan projects employing 9 people the first 
year increasing to 28 in the fifth year. The Petitioner did not submit evidence that the employment of 
9 to 28 individuals is significantly high in her industry or in economically depressed areas. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits a letter from S-H-, Medical Scientist at _________ 
expressing their opinion that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. S-H- summarizes 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and states her "company's commitment to leveraging cutting-edge 
technology and providing comprehensive training programs will elevate the standards of biomedical 
diagnostics. Her endeavor not only addresses critical public health needs but also stimulates economic 
growth by creating jobs and fostering collaboration with leading research institutions." S-H- does not 
specify how the Petitioner's company's services and collaborations would extend beyond its 
customers and partners to impact her field or industry more broadly on a level indicative of national 
importance. 
In sum, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's company has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic 
effects, has national or even global implications within her field, or has other broader implications 
indicating national importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
The Petitioner has not established 
the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor and she 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. As this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve determination of her eligibility under the 
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 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4