dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Clinical Laboratory Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 29, 2024 In Re: 29852953 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a clinical laboratory technician, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) as a member of the professionals holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional 
ability, 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, but she 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. 
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 l&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 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 Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
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. Id. We also stated that "[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." Id. at 890. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner initially stated that "the field of my proposed endeavor 1s Clinical Laboratory 
Technician" and described her endeavor as following: 
My proposed endeavor is to work as a healthcare professional in the United States of 
America. I could use my experience to help Healthcare professional shortage area 
(HPSAs). The substantial merit of this endeavor lies in the fact that my work could 
help the country especially in an underprivileged area and also in an area with a huge 
shortage of healthcare professionals. 
However, the Petitioner's evidence consists of general articles discussing the shortage of healthcare 
professionals in various parts of the United States and did not include any details and specific impact 
of her endeavor, such as where she will focus her healthcare work, how these areas are underserved 
or underprivileged communities, and what types of activities or services will be provided. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner expanded her endeavor to 
include establishing her own company and stated the following: 
Based on my solid academic and theoretical background and supported by an ascending 
and successful professional career, I intend to create a company to provide Clinical 
Laboratory services and quality control of blood components and their derivatives, in 
general for small and medium-sized companies, notably, health centers, laboratories, 
clinics and hospitals, who perform transfusion medicine. 
In concluding that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance under 
the first prong of Dhanasar, the Director specified that the record does not show how this endeavor 
would offer substantial economic benefits or impact employment levels "regionally or nationally." 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
Furthermore, the Director determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific 
endeavor offers "original innovations that will contribute to the Clinical Laboratory Technician field 
more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly applied the national importance element 
by focusing on the endeavor's geographical impact and substantial economic effects, such as a 
potential to employ U.S. workers, rather than the nature of the proposed endeavor. The Petitioner cites 
to 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual: "officers may consider 
the evidence of the endeavor's potential significant economic impact, but merit may be established 
without immediate or quantifiable economic impact [ ... ] officers should focus on the nature of the 
proposed endeavor, rather than only the geographic breadth of the endeavor." Contrary to the 
Petitioner's assertions, we conclude that the Director's decision properly adhered to the cited passage 
from the policy manual and the precedent decision, Dhanasar, in evaluating the Petitioner's endeavor. 
Determining whether the endeavor has national importance according to Dhanasar can involve 
economic considerations, such as whether the endeavor has any "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 890. At the same time, we can also evaluate the endeavor without quantifiable economic 
impact, as Dhanasar contemplates that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. at 889. Here, the Director 
considered both the endeavor's substantial positive economic effects to the regions where the 
Petitioner claims to operate her company and the endeavor's national or global implications in the 
field without focusing on the certain geographical area. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that her company would operate on 
such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance. The 
Petitioner generally claims that health professionals bring "positive effects on the nation's economy 
and productivity," but has not supported her claims with pertinent evidence showing that her company 
will generate substantial revenue or employment in a particular region or in economically depressed 
areas. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
We farther agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established her endeavor's specific 
impact extending beyond her business and clients to impact the field more broadly. The Petitioner has 
not provided details of her clinical laboratory services or corroborating evidence of how her diagnostic 
testing methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the 
United States, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. at 889. The 
record includes one recommendation letter from an adjunct professor at .__________ ___, 
Center in Brazil. However, the letter discusses the Petitioner's past participation in the professor's 
health technology classes, her commitment in learning, professionalism, and ability to perform 
laboratory procedures, instead of addressing the Petitioner's specific future endeavor and its broad 
impact in the field. 
3 
Much of the evidence submitted in support of the Dhanasar's first prong addresses the industry or 
profession in which the Petitioner intends to work without discussing her specific proposed endeavor 
and its specific impact. In responding to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted various articles on the 
importance of diagnostic testing as well as the value of clinical laboratory technicians. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) STEM designed degree program list 
from July 2022, the Bureau of the Labor Statistics (BLS) occupational outlook handbook on clinical 
laboratory technologists, and articles on hospital staff shortage and the benefit of early cancer 
detection, claiming that her endeavor aligns with the important priorities of the government. Although 
we recognize the value of laboratory technologists and importance of STEM related professions, we 
emphasize that such evidence does not necessarily establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Moreover, there is no automatic 
grant of a national interest waiver for everyone who claims to be in a STEM field. The USCIS policy 
states that "with respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), 
supra. 
When 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" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual at F.5(D)(l), supra (stating, as 
guidance, that in determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the 
beneficiary will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification). 
The Petitioner also contends that "the adjudicating officer considered these two criteria (geography 
and employment) as absolute and disregarded the other criteria (national initiative) as establishing 
national importance." However, the Petitioner's reference to "a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives" in the context of 
evaluating national importance is misplaced. Regardless of whether a generalized industry or field 
may have national importance or is the subject of a national initiative, the record must nevertheless 
establish how the specific endeavor may have "national or even global implications within a particular 
field" or broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
In Dhanasar, we gave significant weight to media articles and other evidence documenting the interest 
of the federal government in Dr. Dhanasar's area of proposed research. The evidence presented in 
that case included "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 the 
petitioner's specific research. Id. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such 
as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities specifically detailing how 
her endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives. None of the articles specifically 
address the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of the 
Petitioner's company. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential 
prospective impact of her specific endeavor to a matter that is the subject of national initiatives. 
4 
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, 
despite the Petitioner's assertions, the record lacks sufficient evidence regarding any national impact 
in the field or projected U.S. economic impact attributable to her future work. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established her proposed work is of national importance. 
Because the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar's analytical framework, we decline 
to reach whether she meets the remaining second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework, 
and farther reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies the second-preference 
eligibility criteria. 2 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"); Matter ofL-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, she has 
not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified "for the classification" without providing analysis on the issue. 
Contrary to such determination, the Director's RFE dated January 9, 2023, found that the Petitioner is not eligible as an 
individual of exceptional ability because she did not meet at least three out of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
The Director also stated that the Petitioner does not qualify as an advanced degree professional in the RFE dated June 3, 
2022. Because the record does not establish that the Petitioner merits a national interest waiver, we will reserve the issue 
for future consideration should the need arise. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
5