dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cardiovascular Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7588992 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 3, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician and researcher specializing in cardiovascular medicine, seeks second 
preference 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 EB-2 classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver , a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. 
At the time of f~etitioner was working as an internal medicine resident at 
I I in . The Petitioner provided a letter from the program director of the internal 
medicine residency at stating that he "is responsible for taking care of patients but at the same 
time he dedicates a significant amount of his residency to work on important research projects in 
cardiovascular disease." 4 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his research relating to I I cardiology 
effectiveness ofl _ I in treating I !disease, optimizing treatment techniques 
andl !disease H~ explained that his proposed research is aimed at ooderstanding the 
forl occlusions, and determining the optimal statin dosage for patients 
with advanced sfegrees ofl !disease. 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance. For example, the record includes information from the 
American Heart Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discussing the 
prevalence of cardiovascular disease in the United States and its adverse effects on public health. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research 
has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through medical journals 
and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance 
of his proposed cardiovascular research, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 5 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
he intends to work in order to detennine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
5 With respect to the Petitioner's patient care duties at D while these endeavors have substantial merit, the record does 
not establish that his clinical work would impact the field of cardiovascular medicine or the U.S. healthcare industry more 
broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of 
their broader impact, the Petitioner's clinical activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. Similarly, 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. 
3 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. As previously noted, 
his clinical work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the Petitioner's 
proposed cardiovascular research has broader implications for the field (unlike his work as a clinician), 
our analysis under this prong will focus on whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
research relating tol !cardiology and.__ _____ _.disease. For the reasons discussed 
below, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance that research 
under Dhanasar's second prong. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical 
certifications, peer review activities, published articles, and conference presentations. He also offered 
evidence of articles that cited to his published work6, and reference letters discussing his past research 
projects. 
In letters supporting the petition, several medical professors discussed the Petitioner's research aimed 
at understanding and treating cardiovascular diseases. 7 For example, regarding the Petitioner's 
interventionOresearch,I l clinical professor at University '--~---------~ of School of Medicine, stated: "[The Petitioner's] investigation showed that 
patients who receive ~--------~exhibited fewer procedural complications during stent 
insertion and that there was no association between I I blood vessels and 
negative outcomes in the long term." I I indicated that this study "suggests thatl I 
is a safe and effective approach to increase the success rate ot'Oprocedures." The record includes 
a July 2018 Google Scholar citation report indicating that the aforementioned study published in 
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions ( entitled 
.__ ___________ __. ) has received one citation since its publication in August 2017. 8 
6 For instance, the Petitioner provided a July 2018 citation report from Google Scholar indicating that his article in Expert 
Review of Cardiovascular Therapy ( entitled 'I b has received 11 citations 
since its online publication in January 2017. We note that three of these citations reflect self-citation by the Petitioner. In 
response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner argued that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. 
Dhanasar, the petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent decision. While we listed Dr. Dhanasar's ·'publications and other 
published materials that cite his work" among the documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned 
under the second prong was not based on his citation record. Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's 
education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained 
interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his 
proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether 
a petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor among many that may 
contribute to such a finding. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 The Petitioner provided October 2017 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by 
year of publication for various research fields, including "Clinical Medicine." This documentation from Clarivate 
Analytics states that"[ c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly 
cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his articles in Catheterization and 
Cardiovascular Interventions and Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy reflects a level of interest in his work from 
relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
4 
In addition, I I associate professor of medicine at the University of .... I ___ _, I !asserted that "[o]ne of the areas of[the Petitioner's research with which I am 
most familiar is his comparative analysis of I I stents and 
for the treatment of coronary artery~-------- .... occurring 
~as_a_c_o_m_p_l-ic_a_t-io_n_o_f_co_r_o_n_a~ry artery disease." I I farther stated that the Petitioner's work 
"identified I las resulting in lowd I mortality and improvedc==Jdiameter" and that 
his "findings help to establish clinical agreement on the ideal treatment forl_j" but the Petitioner 
has not shown that these findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research involving .... I ____ ;:::=::::::!...l..:;disease,~ _______ __,, 
adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine at Universit oj I indicated..-=~~~~=~......., 
work demonstrated that "angioplasty patients who receive and 
angioplasty had decreased rates oflesionl I andl ~or~----~ lesions." 
The aforementioned Google Scholar · citation report reflects that the Petitioner's article in 
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions ( entitled 
~--~i reporting these findings has been cited eight times since 201 7. 9 The Petitioner, however, 
has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest 
in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
Regarding his peer review activities, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that he reviewed 
seven articles for Vascular Medicine and Journal of Endovascular Therapy. The Petitioner, however, 
has not documented the reputation of these journals or offered other documentation demonstrating that 
his peer review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed 
cardiovascular medicine research. Nor does the record show that the Petitioner's occasional 
participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is 
otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his research endeavor. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during the 
training phases of his medical career, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned 
to advance his proposed research relating tol I cardiology andl I disease. 
While we recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order 
to be accepted for publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, not every individual who has 
performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the 
individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar 
efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. The 
Petitioner, however, has not shown that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for 
progress in the cardiovascular medicine field, that it has affected diagnostic or treatment protocols for 
cardiovascular diseases, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the medical 
community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work constitutes a record of success 
or progress in researching cardiovascular diseases. As the record is insufficient to show that the 
9 Four of these citations reflect self-citation by the Petitioner or his coauthor,._! ______ _. 
5 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research endeavor, he has not established that he 
satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his medical training, 
knowledge and skills in his specialty, research experience and accomplishments, the importance of his 
field, and the impracticality of labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has not established that 
he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the 
balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6