dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2024 In Re: 33965025 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a doctoral research scientist, 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 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 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. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 (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: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude the national interest waiver determination is discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 We agree with that determination. 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. 
The Petitioner is a doctoral candidate in chemistry at the in 
Massachusetts. According to his resume, the Petitioner has worked as a doctoral research scientist at 
since August 2021 and his research consists of investigating and decoding "the physicochemical 
properties of phosphoinositides [Pis]" and designing experiments to "elucidate molecular interactions 
and mechanisms of membrane systems." He was previously a research assistant at a chemical research 
laboratory in Nigeria from August 2019 to July 2021, conducting a study on "heavy metal in printed 
writing boards of mobile phones." He was also a research officer at a horticultural research institute 
in Nigeria from 2017 to 2018, assisting "extraction and analysis of DNA of the microorganisms from 
infected samples of Banana leaves using biotechnological techniques." 
In evaluating Dhanasar' s first prong, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner established 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, he did not establish its national importance. 3 
Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that his research would have a 
broad impact on the field commensurate with national importance and the evidence was insufficient 
to establish the potential for significant positive economic effects. The Director also stated that the 
evidence submitted emphasized the importance of the field or industry in general instead of the 
importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. We agree with the Director's conclusion 
for the reasons discussed below. 
The Petitioner has not delineated "the specific endeavor that [he] proposes to undertake" as required 
under Dhanasar. Id. In the initial filing, the Petitioner described three different research projects: 1) 
studying the spatial organization and gradients of Pis to understand molecular basis of cancer cells to 
advance cancer-related processes, drugs, or treatments; 2) researching heavy metal recovery from 
electronic waste, specifically from printed wiring boards of mobile phones, to reduce human exposure 
to such chemical waste; and 3) investigating microplastic and nano-plastic recycling to produce high-
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent ofa U.S. master's degree in chemistry from 
in Nigeria. 
3 The Director did not make any determinations on the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. However, the 
Petitioner does not address the second or third prong issues and has abandoned any challenge regarding this matter. See, 
e.g., Matter of O-R-E-. 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). 
2 
valued bioproducts. While the record details the Petitioner's current and past research, it does not 
outline with specificity the future endeavor he plans to undertake within the various research areas. 
The Petitioner's proposed activities and goals are wide-ranging and divergent without a clear focus, 
including discovery of cancer treatment and drugs, reduction of electronic waste in the environment, 
and creation of bioproducts from recycling micro- and nano-plastics. To evaluate whether the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Id. The Petitioner's response to the 
Director's request for evidence reiterated his current and past research projects with additional details, 
but he did not specify his prospective endeavor and thereby did not provide sufficient information to 
allow for proper evaluation of the endeavor's impact under the Dhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner 
has not clarified how these varied research topics relate to each other, how much time he will devote 
to executing his different research duties, what his planned projects are, or how his research will 
continue. The Petitioner has not provided sufficiently detailed statements concerning the proposed 
future work and as such, we conclude that the Petitioner has yet to identify his specific proposed 
endeavor. 
The Petitioner also has not provided probative evidence of his endeavor's prospective impact. 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. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his research focused 
on cancer treatment drug discovery align with the Biden administration's initiative on funding 
programs to fight cancer in the United States and discuss how relevant federal agencies are investing 
in research regarding cancer treatment and environmental protection. However, merely working in an 
important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. For 
example, the Petitioner's industry articles and reports offer a general overview of cancer statistics and 
facts and the importance of cancer-related research, but they do not discuss the specific nature of the 
Petitioner's endeavor or the details of the innovative methodology or discoveries that would result 
from his research that would broadly impact the field. 
In Dhanasar, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior 
positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. 
Government interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. However, the Petitioner has not 
provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government 
entities detailing how his research impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives. None of 
the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the government's 
interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's research. 
Instead, the Petitioner makes generalized claims, that he is "uniquely positioned to contribute 
groundbreaking discoveries in the field of cancer drug discovery using cutting-edge science" or that 
his research is unique in understanding "how switching/mutating sequence of protein/peptide 
influencing cancer can affect how it binds to lipids (phosphoinositides) and other biomolecules in the 
body"; or that his findings show "the validity of the developed novel method in investigating 
bimolecular interaction." The Petitioner further claims that "my research has garnered recognition 
3 
from peers within the field, evident through frequent citations, recommendations, and the expressed 
interest of fellow researchers in my work." 
Despite the Petitioner's various claims about the unique and novel findings of his research that was 
cited and recognized by fellow researchers, the evidence of record did not offer a sufficiently direct 
connection between his research and advancement in the cancer drug or treatment or in reducing 
exposure to toxic waste in in the environment - which appears in large part to form the basis of the 
Petitioner's assertions that his prospective endeavor will be of national importance. Here, the 
Petitioner provided recommendation letters, examples of his research papers and citations, and an 
award of funding, but the record does not offer any supporting evidence detailing how his research 
will have a broad impact in the field. 
While the Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation, they are largely from professors at and 
professors in Nigeria and Uganda with whom he collaborated in research. These professors discuss 
the Petitioner "as a member of my research group" and the general importance of the research that the 
Petitioner has engaged in, but none of the authors discussed the Petitioner's proposed future endeavor 
that would have broad impact rising to the level of national importance. Instead, the authors primarily 
focused on the Petitioner's past or current research and his skills as a researcher in different research 
areas. One professor contends that the Petitioner's research in cancer treatment has national 
importance while another professor claims that the Petitioner's research in recovery of heavy metals 
contributes to the goals and mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence of his research publications and that at the time of filing, his 
work had been cited eleven times. However, the focus of each publication is different, as one 
publication discusses the extracting heavy metals from mobile phones to reduce electronic waste while 
another discusses recycling of plastics. Although the Petitioner claimed that his primary research is 
in cancer drug discovery, none of the publications cited in the past is germane to cancer-related 
research. Despite his claims that his research has been acknowledged and cited, the Petitioner has not 
identified the specific nature of his proposed future research so that we might determine its possible 
impact, nor has he identified how his future research will be disseminated into the scientific 
community such that its potential can be properly evaluated. 
The Petitioner further submitted an award of funding abstract from the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) in 2019 with an end date of July 31, 2023. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
funding from NSF equates to national importance for the purposes of a national interest waiver with 
other corroborating evidence, aside from his claim that "the problem being addressed in this research 
is of national significance." Here, the record does not indicate that the Petitioner is the principal 
investigator for this research or that he was mainly responsible for obtaining such funding. 4 The 
Petitioner also has not offered specific plan as to how he will continue this research. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director focused only on one aspect of his proposed 
endeavor and did not consider "other aspect of my work which is focused on environmental protection 
where I discussed how my research on recovery of heavy metals from electronic wastes." The 
4 It appears that the Petitioner previously worked under the auspices of a faculty member whose project was awarded the 
funding. 
4 
Petitioner also contends that the Director mischaracterized his past experience as performing "data 
research as a student" and mislabeling his endeavor as "medical researcher." However, the Petitioner 
has not clearly identified his proposed endeavor, whether he is a medical researcher working to find a 
cancer drug, an environmental researcher seeking to reduce electronic waste, or a general researcher 
who studies any given topics as required by his employer or institution. When the Director asked for 
a specific and detailed plan for his proposed endeavor in the RFE, the Petitioner stated that "[ m ]y 
primary research focus has centered on identifying potential targets for cancer treatment," but on 
appeal, the Petitioner attempts to include other research areas that he has investigated in the past to 
make his appellate arguments. As a result, the Director's statements are not mischaracterization or 
misunderstanding but a reflection of the undefined nature of the Petitioner's endeavor that complicate 
evaluation and analysis under the Dhanasar prongs. 
Overall, the record does not include sufficient information or supporting evidence identifying the 
specific research projects the Petitioner intends to undertake, the nature and extent of his proposed 
research, how he will disseminate his research, or how the Petitioner will allocate his time given the 
different types of research and fields. In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national 
interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine whether it has national 
importance under the Dhanasar's first prong analysis. However, the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor and its prospective impact. 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the issue of his eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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, he has not 
established eligibility for 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. 
5