dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Lobbying / Government Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 30588395 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a specialist in lobbying and government relations in the healthcare and pharmaceutical 
industry, 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 record establishes 
that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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, 1 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 
A. EB-2 Classification 
The Petitioner is a specialist in lobbying and government relations in the healthcare and 
pharmaceutical industry in Brazil. He asserts he is qualified for the EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's 
degree and over five years of progressive experience. He submitted a diploma and transcripts for his 
foreign degree along with an academic evaluation stating that his degree is equivalent to a U.S. 
bachelor of science in legal studies. The Petitioner states that he had over 19 years of experience in 
the industry at the time he initially filed the petition. The record contains a resume within his business 
plan; however, the record does not contain letters from employers as evidence of his progressive 
experience in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ). The Director concluded in the request for 
evidence that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 
did not discuss the evidence in the record. However, as the record does not otherwise establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion, we will reserve the issue of the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 2 
B. National Interest Waiver 
1. Substantial Merit 
The first prong, 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor is to establish a lobbying and legal 
consulting company, offering a variety of consulting services to its clients, specifically foundations, 
non-governmental organizations, health plan providers, health organizations, medical and 
pharmaceutical companies, and health associations, covering different aspects of lobbying and 
1 See 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 
government relations matters. The record includes information on current challenges facing the 
pharmaceutical industry in the United States and as the importance of lobbying to advance health and 
science policy. We conclude that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
2. National Importance 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Id. The Director concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, it does not meet the threshold of national importance. The Petitioner contends that 
the Director's decision did not explain the specific reasons for the denial and did not address all his 
assertions for why his proposed endeavor is nationally important. The Petitioner first highlights the 
Director's determination that the industry articles in the record are, "generic regarding the field, and 
does not support that the proposed endeavor has national importance." The Petitioner contends that 
the articles show the national importance of the proposed endeavor as they highlight current national 
challenges in the industry such as the cost of health care preventing people from getting needed care 
and a national shortage in cancer drugs. 
We acknowledge the importance of the industry; however, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. While these articles provide important 
background information on current challenges facing the industry, here, the Petitioner improperly 
relies upon the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor will help alleviate the industry challenges 
that the articles highlight, however, the Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his 
endeavor has the potential to have broader implications to the U.S. healthcare and pharmaceutical 
industry. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient documentary evidence of the specific proposed 
endeavor's broader impact in the industry, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet the 
"national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor is of national importance because it is in the STEM 
field. The Petitioner asserts his field of expertise falls within the "Department of Homeland Security 
STEM Designated Degree Program List" under "Pharmaeconomics/ Pharmeceutical Economics." 
However, "[ w ]ith respect to the first [Dhanasar] prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate 
that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance." See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A STEM endeavor that is not indicative of 
an impact in the particular field of STEM more broadly would not establish its national importance. 
See id. Therefore, whether the proposed endeavor is in a STEM field or is listed on the "DHS STEM 
Designated Degree Program List" is not dispositive--the Petitioner must still establish that the 
proposed endeavor would have an impact in the field of STEM more broadly or have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See id.; see also Dhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. at 889-90. The Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor can be categorized under this 
industry, but record does not establish that the proposed endeavor would have a broad impact on the 
"Pharmaeconomics/ Pharmeceutical Economics" industry, other than his assertion that he has 
3 
experience with pharmaceutical economics and his endeavor has, "potential to help the U.S. to grow 
and reach its 2023 goal ofleading the STEM field among the globe." 
Dhanasar states that a proposed endeavor may have national importance if it has, "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers" or "other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner states that he will 
"contribute to America's prosperity" by employing 16 direct employees by his company's 5th year of 
operation and create 34 indirect jobs within that same time frame. The initial petition discusses the 
vast pharmaceutical industry and its impact on the U.S. economy and employment; however, the 
record does not establish that staffing levels of his specific proposed endeavor demonstrates 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers" and therefore do not rise to the level of national 
importance. In addition, the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor would have a 
substantial positive economic impact, other than stating the economic impact of the pharmaceutical 
industry as a whole. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that his proposed endeavor will broadly enhance societal 
welfare, stating, "[T]he healthcare sector is one of the most important domains that impacts the entire 
global population and is closely linked to the development of any country .. .lobbying and government 
affairs consulting services ... have a significant impact on the development of the national health care 
system and on the spread of affordable medication." To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the 
"potential prospective impact" of his specific proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to broadly enhance societal welfare, he has not 
offered sufficient objective and independent evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of 
his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. For 
example, the Petitioner states that he will, support patent reforms by advocating for, "[p ]atent reform 
measures. . . . This might include endorsing policies that make it easier for generic drug manufacturers 
to bring affordable alternatives to marker once patents expire." However, the record does not contain 
sufficient independent evidence of how the Petitioner will do this or what the impact of this would be. 
In Dhanasar we determined 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, we conclude the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show potential impact of 
the Petitioner endorsing certain policies and that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond his direct clients to impact the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the 
record in its entirety. As the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the 
identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude by a preponderance of the evidence 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. 
5