dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Immunology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 05, 2025 In Re: 36409136 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a laboratory supervisor/researcher, 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 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. 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess 
a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit 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 
the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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. 
On the Form I-140 (I-140), Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated that his 
occupation is a laboratory supervisor and that he intended to research and develop new drugs for 
optimizing immune responses and treating immune related diseases. In a statement submitted with 
the I-140, the Petitioner contended that he has been specializing in the advanced research of 
immunology for over ten years. He asserted that his research focused on translational and clinical bio­
medical research, therapeutics discovery, and its development. He currently worked as the laboratory 
supervisor at I bio-pharmaceutical company famous for its 
frontier medical research and innovations." 
The Petitioner additionally submitted recommendation letters from professional associates, copies of 
his published articles, information about the journals who published his work, a copy of his Google 
Scholar profile, documents regarding his participation at conferences, and awards he has received. A 
letter from Dr. at the described the Petitioner as 
having contributed significant knowledge to the function and malfunction of the immune system, in 
particular a better understanding of the function of T-cells in initiating or regulating a protective 
immune response, which has moved the field of developmental immunology forward. Dr. I I 
stated that the findings from the Petitioner's studies "undoubtedly influence the improvement of anti­
viral and anti-cancer vaccines" and "led to new therapeutic targets for immune therapy curing or 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
I 
preventing autoimmune diseases." Dr. a cancer 
research company, stated that the Petitioner's participation in a research project with this company 
facilitated its success and that several projects he worked on achieved milestones faster than expected. 
The letter from Dr. I lwent on to attest that the Petitioner's research dealt with finding new 
methods by which to treat cancer and that his work had been crucial to advancing treatment modalities. 
Dr.I I a pharmaceutical company, discussed the Petitioner's work to 
study the dysregulation of T cells that could provide new insights to prevent or treat inflammatory 
bowel diseases. This letter also stated that the Petitioner's work had translational value to scholars 
working toward developing drugs for manipulating cell population in diseases and that Dr. I 
looked forward to his future work. A letter from Dr. I Ithe Petitioner's 
current employer, the Petitioner's contributions to T cell biology research indicated that he would 
continue to advance in the field of immunology. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor met 
requirements according to the first Dhanasar prong for substantial merit and national importance. 
However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that he was well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor of conducting research under the second Dhanasar prong. In doing 
so, the Director noted that not all individuals who have performed original research will be well­
positioned to advance their proposed research. The Director concluded that the evidence submitted 
by the Petitioner, including as supplemented after a request for additional evidence, did not establish 
that the Petitioner's research had been influential beyond adding to the general pool of knowledge. 
The Director also found no evidence of the Petitioner's progress toward achieving the proposed 
endeavor. Finally, the Director determined that, on balance, the Petitioner had not met the third 
Dhanasar prong's requirements to show that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues his eligibility for the national interest waiver and submits a new letter 
along with copies of previously-submitted evidence. The Petitioner generally claims that the Director 
did not appropriately weigh the evidence in the record regarding whether he is well-positioned to 
advance his endeavor. He asserts that the Director did not recognize his academic achievements as 
recognized by his peer scholars. The Petitioner further contends that he submitted a letter from Dr . 
_____ at the _________________ that demonstrates by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he has a record of progress and has received inquiries regarding 
collaboration from prominent researchers. Additionally, he states that because his publications have 
been cited more than 100 times, his work has provided knowledge basis for developing novel theories. 
He also disagrees with the Director's finding that his participation in conferences and symposiums did 
not show intellectual influence. 
As described by the Petitioner in his initial pet1t10n, his endeavor consists of researching and 
developing new drugs for optimizing immune responses and treating immune related diseases. 3 The 
3 Because the Petitioner is ineligible for the requested waiver for the reasons discussed here, we need not reach, and 
therefore reserve the matter of whether his proposed endeavor is of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). However, our review of the record indicates that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Should the Petitioner file a motion for 
us to reconsider or reopen this decision, it should address this eligibility criterion. 
3 
second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. Id. at 890. To determine 
whether a Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: 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. Id. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong. 
As an initial matter, the Petitioner has not elaborated a model or plan for his future activities, nor has 
he sufficiently demonstrated interest in collaboration from relevant entities in the United States. He 
has also not submitted documentation from any organization or employer identifying interest in the 
specific research projects he intends to pursue in the future. Despite the Petitioner's contention on 
appeal that the letter from Dr.I I demonstrates interest from future collaborators, the Petitioner 
does not address the Director's observation regarding the absence in the record of independent 
documentary evidence of these inquiries. Additionally, the record does not show that the Petitioner 
has received funding for his any future projects. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner 
had "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. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating the means by which the Petitioner plans to undertake his immunological research in the 
United States, he has not shown that he has a plan for future activities renders him well-positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that his academic achievements have been recognized by his peer 
scholars and that this demonstrates that he is well-positioned to advance his endeavor. However, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently shown a track record of past success or progress in achieving the 
proposed endeavor, specifically research leading to the development of new drugs. While we 
recognize that research necessarily adds information to the pool of knowledge by virtue of its 
acceptance for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has 
performed original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Although the support letters in the record praise the Petitioner's contributions to the field of 
immunology and some state that his research could contribute to the development of novel therapies 
or treatment in the future, this is not sufficient to show that he is well-positioned to develop new drugs, 
therapies, or treatments. 
As the record is insufficient to show that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
research endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. We therefore conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4