dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Health Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-O-O-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : OCT . 1, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an environmental health 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 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
finding 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 under 
the Dhanasar framework. 
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: 
Matter ofT-O-O-
(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. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, users 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are met. See 
also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USeIS' decision 
to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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, users 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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
Matter ofT-0-0-
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, "[t]o apply for the [national 
interest] exemption the petitioner must submit Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, 
in duplicate." The Petitioner did not execute this required document for the petition, and therefore he 
has not properly applied for the national interest waiver. For this reason, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. Furthermore, as discussed below, we find the Petitioner 
has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in 
Dhanasar. 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he seeks to continue his research aimed at understanding I I 
and developing measures "to detect, monitor, and reduce human exposure" tol I c=::J. 4 He explained that his proposed work focuses on identifying new.__ _______ .....,.__,,,,....--=--' 
"the risks they pose to communities, providing policy makers and other researchers with invaluable 
data upon which to work. [The Petitioner] is also working on producing a more effective, efficient, 
and economically-responsible method for monitoring I within U.S. cities." In addition, 
the Petitioner stated that his ro osed research involves demonstrating "the feasibility of tactically 
deploying . . . thus providing r more accurate estimate 
o ~-----~ ithin that city." We find that the Petitioner's proposed I 
research aimed at improving public health has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. The record includes letters of support discussing how the Petitioner's 
proposed research stands to improve air quality in U.S. communities. For instance,! I I I l, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences atl I asserted 
that the Petitioner's proposed "work will lead to advances in identifying new admission sources at the 
community level and gauging the risks they pose." In addition,I I director of the 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner received a Master of Health Science degree in Occupational and Environmental Hygiene fromD 
4 At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a graduate research assistant at the University of.__ ________ ___, 
I ] As he 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 consider information about his research position to illustrate the capacity in 
which he intends to work. 
3 
Matter ofT-0-0-
.__ _________________________________ ____. indicated 
that the Petitioner's research aimed at "understanding how to measure and control human exposure to 
energy-related pollutants" is "widely regarded as vital to our national priority." Furthermore, the 
Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader 
implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through scientific 
journals and reports. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed research, we find that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, American Industrial Hygiene Foundation 
(AIHF) scholarships, master's thesis, and published work. The Petitioner also offered a May 2018 
letter from thel , , , I providing him access to that city' sl I 
stations for bis Pb O rsearch project and reference letters discussing his graduate research activities 
at c:::::J and I _ 5 
The Petitioner contends that his academic qualifications, research experience, and support from .... l _ ___, 
indicate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. In letters supp~.LLL/ii;...J.IJ~l..l<..U..Ll..l..!:.U....... 
several of the Petitioner's former collea:es discussed his prior research aimed at 
methods. For exampleJ.__ _____ ~J a senior reservoir engineer at noted that the 
Petitioner worked as an intern for that compan , and that his paper, entitled '.__ _______ _. 
was included as a reference in the 
.__ ____________ __.' The Petitioner, however, has not presented evidence illustrating 
the significance of inclusion in this database, or establishing that his research has been implemented, 
utilized, or applauded by those viewing it. 
In addition,! I a professor at stated that the Petitioner's work "compared new 
methods for assessing the concentrations to standard methods to determine the 
most accurate direct method of testinH- ______ ___,on such surfaces." I I asserted that 
"the I I protocol developed and validated by [the Petitioner] has been adopted as 
standard practice by at least one multinationa 11, I company," but the record does not 
indicate that the Petitioner's testing protocol stands to be utilized beyond this single company. 
Furthermore, with respect to the Petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation project addressing community 
I I asserted that this project seeks to assess whether I I 
,==========, 
.__ _____ ___, are sufficiently accurate for measuring at locations around 
the monitoring sites to obtain a more complete picture of the actua_...._ ______ ~ ____ __. 
D within a city. If this is demonstrated, valuable new research can be envisioned at the local 
community level." Similarly, I I assistant professor atl I explained that the 
Petitioner's Ph.D. work involves "evaluation ofl lin work 
places and community settings. This topic is very important to understand environmental disparities 
in disadvantaged U.S. communities." While and I I discuss the potential 
importance of the Petitioner's.__ ________ __,research, the evidence does not show a record 
5 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter ofT-0-0-
of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second 
prong. 
Regarding his two AIHF scholarships to attendl I the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
AIHF's website identifying him as a recipient, but did not offer the criteria for receiving these 
scholarships. Nonetheless, he has not demonstrated that receiving these academic scholarships 
represents a record of success in his field or is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance 
I I research. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his academic career. 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 or her proposed research. 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 has not shown that his research has been frequently cited by 
independent scientists or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field, that it has affected 
.__ ________ __,practices, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader 
environmental health science community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work 
constitutes a record of success or progress in his area of research. As the record is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed 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 education, research 
skills and accomplishments, and the importance of his field. 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 farther 
discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in 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. In visa petition 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; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
5 
Matter ofT-0-0-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of T-0-0-, ID# 4288292 (AAO Oct. 1, 2019) 
6