dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Health Informatics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31660319 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a data programmer analyst and data scientist, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) 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 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and 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 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 Christa'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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 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 filing, the Petitioner was working as a data programmer analyst at the
I I He did not clearly describe his proposed endeavor in his initial 
filing. In a Letter of Intent submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he 
stated that he intends to "continue working in the field of health informatics, using [his] qualifications 
and expertise to enhance the effects and benefits of informatics in improving the health outcomes of 
pediatric patients in the United States and the economy of the United States. Specifically, [he] 
intend[s] to work as a data programmer analyst/ data scientist in the field of health informatics." He 
referenced his employment atl Iand expressed intent to "continue working in similar healthcare 
organizations where [he] will leverage [his] data programming skills to develop and implement data­
driven quality improvement programs, as well as to develop and evaluate new healthcare interventions 
to improve pediatric chronic disease management." Further, the Petitioner's "long-term plan is to 
create and incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) models into mobile applications that can be leveraged 
in the management of chronic disease patients including pediatric patients in the United States," as 
well as to pursue a doctoral degree in "Health Informatics with a research focus on Clinical 
Informatics" and work as an adjunct professor. 
The Director concluded that although the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his proposed 
endeavor, he had not demonstrated its national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
Regarding the first prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, the Director concluded that the Petitioner appears 
to intend to continue his current employment at I I and that the impact of such work is limited to 
the Petitioner and his employer. On appeal, the Petitioner argues this conclusion was in error, as he 
stated he intends to "continue working in similar healthcare organizations." He also asserts that the 
Director did not properly address the evidence he submitted about the socio-economic benefits of his 
proposed endeavor and the broader interest and potential prospective impact of his work as reflected 
in citations of his work by independent researchers. For the reasons provided below, we agree with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered the record in its entirety. 
2 The Petitioner rovided evidence that he received a Master of Science degree m Health Inf01matics from 
in IIndiana, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Medical Laboratory Science 
from in Nigeria. 
2 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. We determined in Dhanasar 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. 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. 
The record includes letters of support from the Petitioner's 
formergraduate school professors, peers, 
colleagues, and employers, as well as his current employer at As the Director noted, the writers 
discuss the Petitioner's past education, research, and work projects but do not specifically address his 
proposed endeavor. Similarly, a letter from the president and chief medical officer of a healthcare 
organization discussing the Petitioner's past research on interoperability of electronic health records 
systems does not speak to his current proposed endeavor. A letter from an interventional cardiologist 
discusses the Petitioner's past research and mentions the importance of"artificial intelligence (AI) and 
machine learning algorithms in medicine," but does not state the basis for the writer's knowledge or 
address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically. In addition, the Petitioner previously 
provided articles discussing data science and health informatics, including their importance in 
healthcare, and growth projections for the employment of data scientists. He also presented copies of 
his publications relating to his research, evidence that he had been invited to speak at a virtual 
conference relating to healthcare information and management systems, evidence of his employment 
atl Iand articles relating to the importance of health informatics research. 
In the supporting evidence with his initial filing, the Petitioner did not clearly describe his proposed 
endeavor. He provided information and evidence on the importance of the health informatics field in 
general and referenced his education, past research and work in the field, and current employment at 
I I However, he did not outline a proposed endeavor separate or different from his current 
employment, instead emphasizing I I importance as a highly rated children's hospital and 
describing his projects there. He focused on the role of I las a "leading healthcare research 
organization" and noted that his work there "positions [him] at the forefront of novel healthcare 
research and to be a significant contributor to advancing innovations in health informatics that will 
improve healthcare outcomes for patients and advance the quality of life in the population at large." 
In response to the Director's RFE noting that the Petitioner had not provided a proposed endeavor, he 
provided, among other documents, a cover letter explaining that he would "continue in [his] role as a 
Data Programmer Analyst within the healthcare sector." This information was consistent with his 
offer letter from I I which described his employment "as a Data Programmer Analyst." He also 
noted his plan to "continue leveraging data science and analytics methods" to manage pediatric 
diseases, which was the focus of his employment at I I and discussed that his work there could 
positively affect pediatric care across the United States. Although he stated in his Letter oflntent that 
he would "continue working in similar healthcare organizations" and did not specifically state that he 
planned to maintain his employment at I I he did not provide more detail or explain where else 
3 
he intended to work. The other portions of his descriptions of the proposed endeavor appeared to 
focus mainly on, and be largely consistent with, his current employment at I I 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director's conclusion that he appeared 
to plan to continue working at I I was in error because of his statement that he would work in 
similar healthcare organizations, but he still does not provide any further detail about the proposed 
endeavor or clarify where he does intend to work. Accordingly, upon de novo review, we agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in the current record, appears to 
indicate an intent to continue working in his current position as a Data Programmer Analyst atl I 
and that the impact of such work would likely be limited to his employer and to patients at that hospital. 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that, contrary to the Director's conclusion, he provided 
evidence about the potential substantial positive economic effects of his proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar explains 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. Such effects need not be 
national in scale but must demonstrate a potential prospective impact that is "substantial" to a 
particular area, region, or industry. The Director acknowledged the data the Petitioner submitted about 
the growth projections for employment of data scientists, but this information does not show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor would have substantial positive economic effects. The 
Petitioner notes that he discussed in his RFE cover letter the direct and indirect costs of managing 
chronic diseases and that his proposed endeavor would benefit low-income families and reduce 
healthcare spending overall. He also references section 4 of the Personal Plan he submitted in response 
to the RFE, where he again discusses the financial and other impacts of chronic disease management 
on patients and families. However, while the Petitioner provided some data on the overall costs of 
chronic disease management, the documents mention the potential economic impacts of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor in general terms. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained or 
provided data or evidence to demonstrate the projected U.S. economic impact of his specific proposed 
endeavor. Without such evidence, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from his services or position would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in stating that he did not show his 
published work had been frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise served as an 
impetus for progress in the field, had affected the field, or generated substantial positive discourse in 
the broader research community. He submits his Google Scholar report showing he published one 
paper in 2020, two in 2021, and one in 2023, and that his work was cited a total of 48 times since 
2018. He also submits a copy of a research publication by other authors in which his work was cited 
and an updated letter from a former graduate school peer who co-authored a paper with him. However, 
the Petitioner does not provide evidence showing citation rates for other articles in the field to 
demonstrate that the citations of his work exceed the norm for his field and that his work therefore 
offers broader implications. 
The record here does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor of 
working as a data programmer analyst/data scientist in the field of health informatics sufficiently 
extends beyond his current or potential employers to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
4 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that his proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the second and third prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5