dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15255788 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a key chemist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the substantial merit or national importance of the proposed endeavor, nor did it establish 
that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Additionally, the Director 
found that the evidence did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed 
to consider all favorable evidence and erred in denying the petition. 1 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification (emphasis added), as either an advanced degree 
1 On the Form 1-290B, the Petitioner checked the box that she will submit a brief and additional evidence within thirty 
days of filing the appeal. The appeal was filed on September 3, 2020. As of the issuance of this decision,~ have not 
received a brief or additional evidence. Therefore, the Petitioner's appeal statement on the Fonnl-290B will serve as the 
sole explanation for the basis of the appeal. Although this explanation states that the Director failed to consider all 
favorable evidence, the Petitioner has not identified what specific evidence the Director failed to consider. 
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 nation al 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 of job 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, aiis, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pe1iinent 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 2 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 ,3 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. 4 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree.5 On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, which the Petitioner filed in 
October 2019, she provided the following information: 
Part 5 - Additional Information About the Petitioner 
Section 11. Occupation: Synthetic Expert 
Part 6 - Basic Information About the Proposed Employment 
Section 1. Job Title: Key Chemist (Exempt) 
Section 2. SOC Code: 19-1020 6 
Section 3. Nontechnical Job Description: Perform development 
and troubleshooting as well as..,.__ _____ ~validation in ac=J environment. 
According to the ETA 750 Part B, the Petitioner worked until August 2019 as a postdoctoral research 
scholar at the University ofl I In this position, her "research work expanded to 
I I librar synthesis, encoding & decoding, hir-throughput 
screening, solid phase synthesis & purification. lsynthesisJself-assemble 
I I development." 
2 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
3 See also Poursinav. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th Cir. 20 l 9)(finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny 
a national interest wa iverto bed iscretionary in nature). 
4 See Dhanasar, 261 &N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on thesethreeprongs. 
5 The Petitioner earned a foreign Ph.D. in medicinal chemistry in 2014. 
6 Since the filing of the petition, the DepartmentofLabor's Occupational Information Network has reclassified the standard 
occupational classification (SOC) code of 19-1020. It now corresponds to SOC code 19-1029.04 for the occupational 
category of"B io logists." See https://www.onetonline.org/lin k/summary/19-1029.04 (last visited July 20, 2021). Notably, 
the Petitioner did not select SOC code 19-2031, corresponding to "Chemists," which is the title of hercurrentjobandwas 
also her field of academic study. Nor did she select SOC code 19-1021, for "Biochemists and Biophysicists," an 
occupational category which involves researching, developing, and testing drugs. For more information, please visit 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/19-1021.00for more information (last visited July 20, 2021). 
3 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner provided significant information concerning her past work, which 
included research on drugs to address central nervous system diseases and cancer, but little information 
concerning the proposed endeavor. The initial filing also included a,___ ______ ~ __ _. 
I I letter evidencing an offer to the Petitioner to work as a "Key Chemist (Exempt)" and informing 
her that she would be eligible to be considered for grant funding at the discretion of the company and 
according toe=] plans and grant agreements. Aside from the nontechnical job description on the Form 
1-140 itself, the initial filing's only indication of the Petitioner's proposed future work included statements 
that she proposed to: (1) improve curren~ I methods by developing novel I I 
agents and (2) continue her work in drug development research, particularly inl O _ I systems and 
high throughput compound screening. Although she mentioned that she has planned projects for 
developing novel! I methods, she did not provide further details on what any of those projects 
will involve. The numerous letters of recommendation submitted on her behalf did not describe the future 
work the Petitioner would undertake in her proposed endeavor, but rather focused on her past work and 
achievements. 
The Director requested evidence concerning the Petitioner's proposed future work, noting in particular 
that she had not provided sufficient information concerning her proposed endeavor, as opposed to her 
past work. In the request for evidence (RFE), the Director also explained that the first prong of Dhanasar 
considers the "specific endeavor which is the proposed work" and not the field overall. The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner's endeavor would be in the field of drug development, but that 
identifying the field itself did not establish details about the specific proposed endeavor. In her RFE 
response, the Petitioner offered numerous illustrations of her past work, in addition to an overview of 
pharmaceutical chemistry and what it allows her to do. Although she provided additional evidence and 
an updated personal statement, these documents offered little detail concerning the proposed future 
endeavor. 
From statements in the RFE response, we understand that the proposed endeavor involves "researching 
I Id rugs." The Petitioner plans to "be a research scientist to continue my research in the 
field of drug development," and "translate my previous pharmaceutical chemistry expertise into actual 
drug developments." The Petitioner also explained some of the ways that her current projects will move 
forward but did not explain whether these projects were a part of her proposed endeavor.7 A ne~ 
letter contained infmmation on the Petitioner's recent past achievements as a Key Chemist in addition to 
hercurrentwork, including that of advancing research ontopicalc=]medicine, to pi call I medicine, 
and a new drug product to addres.........., _________ ~ and cancer.8 Notably, the newD 
letter did not include a description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. As explained in the 
Director's decision, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
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. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that"we look 
7 For instance, she noted that her research results on an impurity studywill advance to Phase3 clinical studies and that a drug 
that has completed its clinical studies will advance to a new drug application. 
8 The Director correctly observed that this letter contained an explanation of the drug's application to treating~!-~ 
I O I but only mentioned, withoutexplaining, its application to treating cancer. 
4 
for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
i m po rtan ce for exam pie, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. 
As a result of her research work, the Petitioner claimed that several new drugs and/or new drug 
formulations will benefit the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries as wel I as the American people, 
but we do not know what specific benefits she anticipates her research will produce. The Petitioner must 
not only identify her endeavor but also establish what specifically she anticipates its impact will be. 
While the authors of the recommendation letters provided their opinions on how the Petitioner's past 
work is of substantial merit and national importance, none of the letters provided information on the 
impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The author of thC7 letter stated that the Petitioner's 
work will be the subject of U.S. and worldwide patents of which the Petitioner will be a co-inventor, that 
c=J, s work improves people's lives, and that the Petitioner's presence on the research and devel~pment
1 team is indispensable. As these claims pertain only to the Petitioner's research work performed fo 
they do not establish the impact that her proposed endeavor work will have. Both the Petitioner and the 
author of th is letter described the Petitioner's development of a "smart chemistry" approach, however 
neither offered evidence to substantiate the existence of the approach, whether others use the approach, 
or how it has impacted the field of drug development beyond the Petitioner's projects and the work 
performed specificallywithirl I 
Overall, we have insufficient information concerning the proposed endeavor with which to determine 
whether it has substantial merit and national importance. The Petitioner must support her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Here, the Petitioner has not met her burden. We do not know, for instance, what specific research areas 
the Petitioner intends to focus on within the field of drug development, what her planned projects are, 
whether her research will involve the development of therapeutics to treat cancer (as had been originally 
stated), or how much time the Petitioner will devote to her proposed endeavor while also executing her 
research dutiesforc=J Recalling the nontechnical job description from the Form 1-140, we also cannot 
ascertain how the Petitioner's work will incorporate I I method development and 
troubleshooting as well asl I method validation in a LJ environment." In Dhanasar, we 
held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. The initial filing and the RFE response contained 
insufficiently detailed statements concerning the proposed future work and as such, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has yet to identify her specific proposed endeavor. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific 
proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national importance and 
(2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. Because the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding her proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude 
that she meets either the first or second prong or that she has established eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6