dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biostatistics

Date: NOV. 18, 2024 In Re: 34868477 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a biostatistician, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 Christa'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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first Dhanasar prong. 
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner indicated that he is a 
biostatistician. He further detailed that he has expertise in improving predictive algorithms for overall 
mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, preventing childhood obesity, and early intervention of celiac 
disease. In a personal statement submitted with the petition, he asserted that his endeavor was to 
investigate these three conditions in order to "develop novel strategies and innovative statistical 
models to better pose innovative solutions within these medical domains." The Petitioner expressed 
his intentions to pursue a position in the United States at and stated that he 
was confident that he could attain a position related to his proposed endeavor. In response to a request 
for additional evidence (RFE) from the Director, the Petitioner elaborated that he would propose three 
specific projects. The first was a multi-center randomized clinical trial at two Texas locations 
assessing patients highly vulnerable to COVID-19. The second was a study at a Texas children's 
hospital to monitor children aged 3-5 years from low-income families in order to reduce childhood 
obesity and promote healthy behavior. The third was a longitudinal study conducted at thel II Ion early diagnosis and prevention of celiac disease. The 
record additionally includes letters of support, information about the Petitioner's publications such as 
his Google Scholar citation record, his curriculum vitae, an evaluation of his academic degree, letters 
from employers, evidence of membership, and industry articles. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit, the submitted evidence did not establish its national importance, as he had not shown 
the endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers and did not otherwise demonstrate 
substantial positive economic effects. 
2 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). 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts his eligibility for the national interest waiver and contends that he has 
submitted evidence of his proposed endeavor's national importance. In doing so, he states that he 
provided formal reports from national and global medical research organizations emphasizing the need 
for strategies and models to improve solutions for COVID-19, childhood obesity, and pediatric celiac 
disease. The Petitioner claims that the Director's focus on his endeavor's economic effects was 
improper under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. He additionally argues that the Director's 
decision constituted an abuse of discretion and did not consider all relevant evidence. Finally, the 
Petitioner explains that the Director mischaracterized his proposed endeavor, incorrectly identified 
him as a researcher rather than a biostatistician, and conflated his proposed employment with his 
proposed endeavor. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. at 889. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's detailed plans regarding his intended research projects submitted in response to the RFE. 
However, he has not provided independent objective evidence demonstrating how these projects 
would take place, such as letters from potential partners or funders, including from the institutions 
where he would purportedly conduct his studies. A petitioner must support his assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner further expressed confidence that he could become employed as a biostatistician in the 
United States, but he similarly did not elaborate the basis for this statement based on market data or 
interest by the institution where he stated that he would pursue employment. In Dhanasar, the record 
was supported by probative expert letters regarding the U.S. strategic importance of the Petitioner's 
endeavor, as well as letters documenting the U.S. government interest and investment in his research. 
Dhanasar 26 I&N, at 893. Here, the testimonial evidence in the record, such as the recommendation 
letters, does not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact 
such that it rises to the level of national importance. The letters instead outline the past contributions 
the Petitioner has made to the field in and general support for the instant petition. Indeed, the 
Petitioner's arguments on appeal appear to focus on the national importance of the subject matter of 
the Petitioner's endeavor, rather than of the endeavor itself. 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." Dhanasar 26 I&N, at 
889. While we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit, he has not 
corroborated his claim of its national importance. 
The Petitioner correctly noted on appeal that Dhanasar does not require him to show economic impact, 
as the Director's denial indicated. See Id. at 89 ("[ 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"). We further 
recognize the Director's error in mischaracterizing the Petitioner's stated occupation. Nevertheless, 
our review of the record, including the arguments on appeal, does not show by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Petitioner has established the national importance of the proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of our Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because 
the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
4 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5