dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7235898 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a healthcare data analyst, 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) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 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 additional documentation and a brief asserting that she is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these 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. 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: 
(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 (AAO 2016). 1 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 2, 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. 
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, USCIS 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 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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 filin , the Petitioner was working as a healthcare data analyst atl b 
-~--------' The record contains a letter from the director of business and clinical anjlvtilcs at 
indicating that the Petitioner's responsibilities include "developing and maintaining the data 
warehouse, engineering and monitoring key performance indicator dashboards, and using analytics to 
provide strategic direction, gain insight, and identify opportunities." 5 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that her proposed work "focuses on healthcare research, with a specific 
concentration on! I and general internal medicine. My ultimate goal is to utilize advanced 
statistical methodology to decipher risk/benefit factors for various health-related issues." In addition, 
she asserted that another focus of her proposed research is aimed at "predictive factors for healthcare 
utilization and costs." The Petitioner explained that she intends to use her "expertise in statistical 
predictive and healthcare business analysis to help U.S. hospitals to provide better quality of care at 
lower costs." She farther stated that her research undertaking involves identifying "predictors for 
better patients outcomes and greater patient safety;" developing "operational recommendations to 
decrease length of inpatient stay, emergency department visits and readmission rates;" and proposing 
"strategic recommendations to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction by identifying predictive 
factors for patient experience." 
The record includes information about the growing demand for data scientists in the healthcare 
industry and the expanding healthcare analytics market. For example, a June 2018 report from 
Medgadget indicates that the "global healthcare analytics market is estimated to reach $14.9 billion 
by 2022" due to rising demand in the healthcare information technology industry. The record therefore 
supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of her work. In addition to the aforementioned information about the growing 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Master of Public Health degree froml I University in 2012. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
3 
demand for data scientists and the expanding healthcare analytics market, the Petitioner offered a letter 
of support fro ml l professor of public health services at I !University, discussing 
the potential benefits of her proposed research and how it stands to advance her field. I I 
asserted that the Petitioner's proposed "work in the research field will definitely promote the 
improvement of health outcomes while reducing the enormous healthcare costs associated with serious 
chronic conditions such as chronic kidney disease and cerebrovascular disease." In addition,c=] 
I I senior director of patient service operations atD stated that the Petitioner's proposed 
research stands "to shed light on alternative, innovative, and cost-effective solutions to improve ... 
patient safety and clinical outcomes." The record also includes documentation indicating that the 
benefit of the Petitioner's research undertaking has broader implications, as the results are 
disseminated to others in the field through medical journals and conferences. 6 As the Petitioner has 
documented both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, she 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 her curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical certifications, professional 
memberships, published articles, and conference presentations. She also offered evidence of articles 
that cited to her published work, and letters of support discussing her past research projects. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that her "education, skills, knowledge, and record of past success 
in related field, as well as her plan of future research and documented progress towards achieving the 
goal, demonstrate that she is well positioned to execute and advance the proposed endeavor." For the 
reasons discussed below, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to 
advance her proposed research under Dhanasar's second prong. 
etition, several references discussed the Petitioner's medical research 
projects at~-----..--------.--~· 7 For example, regarding the Petitioner's research 
involving risk factors for .__ _____ _.progression, I I associate professor of 
medicine atD stated that the Petitioner "carried out an analysis on the relationship between illicit 
drug use and chronic I I function decline" and revealed an "association between lifetime opiate 
and cocaine use and greater odds of having reduced I !function and/o~ I damage."~ 
I !indicated that the Petitioner's "analysis proved the necessity ofleveraging resources to address 
this potentially modifiable risk factor fo~ I' The record includes a July 2019 Google 
Scholar citation report indicating that the aforementioned study published in American Journal of 
Nephrology has received eight citations since its publication in 2016. 8 The Petitioner, however, has 
not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in 
her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
~---~I also noted that the Petitioner has contributed "to several successful research grant 
proposals" funded by the National Institutes of Health. The Petitioner contends that this funding shows 
6 For instance, I !indicated "[o]ur team and [the Petitioner] aim to publish these results and share our findings 
with other peers in the healthcare industry." 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 This study was coauthored b~ I 
4 
the "U.S. Government's interest and investment in her research." In Dhanasar, the record established 
that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals" 
and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893, n.11. Here, the record 
does not show that the Petitioner (rather than her professors at~ were mainly responsible for 
obtaining governmental funding for her research projects. 
,....=c~~~~------.---~ a nephrologist and epidemiologist at University Medical Center of 
9 stated that the Petitioner worked with her as lead biostatistician in the 
." I l asserted that the Petitioner "played a central role in 
~o_u_r-te_a_m_' s_r_e_s_e-ar_c_h_o_n_t_h_e_r-elationship between I I administration patterns and anemia 
management among hemldialysisl patients." She further indicated that the Petitioner's analysis 
"showed that maintenance strategies were associated with reduced use of the erythropoietin 
stimulating agents (ESA) and lower overall mortality," but the Petitioner has not shown that these 
findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field. 10 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension 
1 
A SH) cir and its benefits for 1 1 function, 1 1 associate professor of pub lie health 
at University, 11 asserted that the Petitioner "found that better accordance with the DASH diet 
is associated with a 40% lower risk of rapid I I function decline among hypertensive individuals, 
yet not among non-hypertensive individuals." I I further noted that the Petitioner's work 
"revealed that the association existing solely among hypertensive patients may be explained by the 
beneficial effect of the DASH diet specifically on vascular injury and endothelial dysfunction." 12 
Regarding the Petitioner's w~ing thel I I I study,L___J stated that the Petitioner identified the "association between a 
.__ _______________________________ ,...._...., .... Given her 
results, clinical guideline bodies can consider evaluating the overall evidence on.___.,._ rotective diets 
for the preservation o~ • lfunction." 13 I I however, does not offer specific examples of 
how the Petitioner's findings from these studies have affected clinical guidelines or otherwise 
constitute a record of success in her field. 
As it relates to the citation of Petitioner's other work, the information from Google Scholar indicates 
that her four highest cited articles in Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension (2014), Blood 
Pur[fication (2016), BMC Nephrology (2014), and Journal of Diabetes and its Complications (2017) 
each received 26, 25, 24, and 21 citations, respectively. The Petitioner also provided 2017 and 2018 
data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication 
for various research fields, including "Clinical Medicine." This documentation from Clarivate 
'f ~reviously worked with the Petitioner during her postdoctoral fellowship in internal medicine ate=] 
Hl The aforementioned Google Scholar citation repolt reflects that the article in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 
reporting their findings has been cited eight times since its publication in 2016. 
11 [ Is cuniculum vitae indicates that she has both a Master of Health Science degree in biostatistics and a Ph.D. in 
nutritional epidemiology fromD. 
12 The Petitioner's Google Scholar citation report indicates that her article in Journal of Renal Nutrition repoiting these 
findings has received six citations since its publication 201 7. 
13 The citation information from Google Scholar reflects that the Petitioner's article in American Journal of Nephrology 
reporting these findings has received 16 citations since its publication 2016. 
5 
Analytics states that "[ c ]itation frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and 
relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, citation rates should not be interpreted as 
representing the central tendency of the distribution." Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the number of citations received by her articles reflects a level of interest in her work from relevant 
parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner's Master of Public Health degree renders her eligible for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, the Petitioner has not shown that her academic accomplishments 
by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research while 
working at I l but she has not shown that this work renders her well positioned to advance 
her proposed healthcare research. 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 her proposed endeavor. 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, however, has not shown that her published and presented work 
has served as an impetus for progress in the medical field, that it has affected diagnostic or treatment 
protocols for diseases, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the medical community. 
Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her work constitutes a record of success or progress 
in the healthcare or biomedical research fields. As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner 
is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established that she 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 she is eligible for a waiver due to her education and 
experience in healthcare research, the importance of her field, and her research accomplishments. 
However, as the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she 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 second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6