dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Life Sciences Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2024 In Re: 29338294 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in healthcare and life sciences management, seeks classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 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, 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 for the EB-2 classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national 
interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for 
adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Director found that the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional, based upon the Petitioner's master's of business administration degree from
I I. The Director also found that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, that he is well-positioned to advance it, or that, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
a brief in which he asserts that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
As to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner states: 
I seek to be admitted as an entrepreneur, founder and executive director of a health and 
life science learning and skill development start-up,~-------~ .... Our 
mission is to equip, empower, and energize the life science workforce through access 
to relevant knowledge, skills and tools needed to power innovation for humanity. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner clarified that the company 
intends to be "a leading life science content library" and that he hopes that it will "ultimately become 
an integral part of the life science workforce learning, training, [and] onboarding" and be a "life-long 
knowledge and skill development resource." The Petitioner states that the company will offer a digital 
subscription-based platform for individuals in the life sciences occupations to access content to learn 
and develop knowledge and skills related to their industry and occupation. 
As to the first Dhanasar prong, the Director found that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. However, as to the national importance requirement, the Director found that the 
evidence did not demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the endeavor beyond the company 
and its clients. The Director also concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
projects have national or global implications in the field, the immediate potential to employ U.S. 
workers or other substantial positive economic effects, nor that the proposed endeavor will broadly 
enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not follow the USCIS policy guidance relating 
to specific evidentiary considerations for entrepreneurs. 2 The Petitioner also claims that the Director 
did not provide a sufficient explanation for the decision's conclusions, misapplied the Dhanasar 
framework, did not consider the totality of the evidence in the record, and used an incorrect evidentiary 
standard. The Petitioner contends that the evidence, if considered in its totality, does demonstrate 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner also objects to some of the specific language of the Director's decision, stating that it 
is "laden with typos and made-up evidentiary standards" and therefore difficult to understand. The 
Petitioner cites as an example of this the following language from the decision: "[t]he proposed 
endeavor and internet industry reports fail to demonstrate the potential prospective impact of the 
petitioner's projects beyond the company initiatives with I land [its] clients, not the United 
States." The Petitioner states that this language is confusing and erroneous. We agree that the 
language the Petitioner cites here is not clear, and the decision is brief in some of its analysis. 
Nevertheless, while the Director's discussion could have been more detailed, we conclude that the 
decision is sufficient and specific enough to provide the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the 
decision and the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see 
also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994). Moreover, we conduct a de novo review and have 
reviewed the record in full. 
In appealing the Director's findings related to whether the record demonstrates the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner asserts that there is a talent shortage in the life sciences 
industry and that the endeavor will address this shortage by providing training to workers. The 
Petitioner also claims that the company will enhance the life sciences education and skill development 
infrastructure, will enhance lifelong learning within the life sciences workforce, will bridge the 
knowledge and skills gap between academia and industry, facilitate collaboration, and help increase 
pandemic preparedness. 
The Petitioner submitted articles to support the claim that there is a shortage of workers in the life 
sciences sector. The articles discuss the challenges in hiring sufficient workers to address demand in 
the life sciences industry and the problem of a "skill mismatch" between what workers in the industry 
are trained for and what company's needs are. The Petitioner also submitted an article stating that 
some large companies such as Pfizer and Sanofi are seeking to train ( or "upskill") their current workers 
to help address the shortage. 
While the record does demonstrate the hiring challenges in the life sciences industry as the Petitioner 
claims, there is not sufficient documentary evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has the potential to impact this issue at a level commensurate with national 
importance. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the potential 
prospective impact of the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. These articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, 
its potential impact, or otherwise demonstrate that the endeavor stands to have an impact on these 
industry hiring challenges that would rise to the level of national importance. 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 
The Petitioner's personal statement and the business plan claim that the company will alleviate this 
challenge in the industry by providing training opportunities for the life sciences workforce. However, 
we conclude that the record does not contain sufficient objective, documentary evidence to establish 
the endeavor's potential prospective impact on this challenge. The business plan describes the 
company's proposed services, its revenue model, the market size for learning and development 
companies in the life sciences industry, potential competitors, and what the company sees as its 
competitive advantage. As far as the potential impact of the proposed endeavor on the industry, the 
plan includes an appendix which projects that the number of users on the platform will exceed 1 
million by 2030. However, the plan does not provide an explanation to support this assumption. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the company will improve the "life science education and skill 
development infrastructure" and will "enhance lifelong learning within the life science workforce," 
the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that the company stands 
to do so at a level that rises to national importance. 
The Petitioner next asserts that his endeavor has the significant potential to hire U.S. workers, based 
upon his business plan and past hiring. The Petitioner also claims that the Director did not use the 
correct standard in considering the endeavor's potential for job creation, because the decision states 
that the record does not demonstrate the endeavor's "immediate" potential to employ U.S. workers. 
We agree that, in evaluating national importance based upon job creation, Matter ofDhanasar does 
not require a showing of "immediate" potential to employ U.S. workers, and we withdraw the 
Director's decision inasmuch as it relies on that finding. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Nevertheless, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has the 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers at a scale that would be commensurate with national 
importance. Although the business plan projects that the company will earn over $100 million in 
revenue and employ 95 U.S. workers by 2030, the plan does not provide a clear basis for these 
projections. These numbers appear to be based upon the assumption in the appendix that the platform 
will exceed 1 million users by 2030, but again the plan does not provide an explanation for projecting 
this number of users. As such, we cannot assess whether the business plan's stated revenue projections 
and job creation estimates are credible, and we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden to 
establish that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or stands to have 
substantial positive economic effects as contemplated by Matter ofDhanasar. Id. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that his endeavor impacts a matter that a government entity has 
described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives. Specifically, the 
Petitioner states that he provided evidence of the Biden administration's effort to improve the 
advanced manufacturing workforce and evidence that New York City and Massachusetts have 
invested money in the life sciences industry, including in workforce training and development. The 
Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor aligns with these initiatives and this demonstrates that 
these efforts are nationally important. Again, the Petitioner's claim here relies on the importance of 
the field in which he will work. Although the Petitioner's endeavor relates to training workers in an 
important industry, the record does not demonstrate that the potential impact of the endeavor on the 
life sciences industry, or life sciences education, rises to the level of national importance. 
4 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor. Because the documentation in the record does not establish national 
importance as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge the Petitioner's arguments on 
appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found that the evidence does not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong, we will not address those arguments here. 3 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework 
related to national importance, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible 
for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Many of the Petitioner's specific claims regarding the insufficiency of the Director's decision, such as those that relate 
to the USCTS policy guidance on specific evidentiary considerations for entrepreneurs, primarily are relevant to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework-whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. For 
example, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider that he has established a business entity, that 
he has relevant education, that he has attempted to be accepted into an accelerator program, and that the company has 
received a grant to hire an intern. See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. Because the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's denial as to the first prong, we 
need not address those arguments here. 
5