dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9435804 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 while the Petitioner 
established his eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion, 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 
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) 
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 
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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
As acknowledged by the Director, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 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. 
The Petitioner is employed as a senior research associate for] lin Pennsylvania. The record 
contains a letter from the company's president indicating that the Petitioner specializes in the areas of 
software development, property management, IT development, and biotech research, and notes that 
his responsibilities include "investigat[ing] the feasibility of the application of a wide array of 
scientific principles/concepts as it relates to our research projects." The letter farther indicates that 
the Petitioner will work on a number of specific research projects at the company's greenhouse, where 
he will study plants containing I I and othd I properties, and states that the 
resulting goal will be "to develop I I drugs for the purpose of treating 
.__ __ __.I Finally, the letter states that in addition to the noted research projects, the Petitioner "will 
participate in a study analyzing the demographic features of the cohorts of subjects both with and 
withou~ I this study will rely on multivariate logistic regression analysis to explore the 
relationship betweenl~------~~reatments, andl ~"
4 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner proposes to "continue his work on using statistical methods to find significant trends in 
medical data," and states that he intends to "farther [his] research onl I and the prevention of 
.__ _____ __.as al I complication." According to the Petitioner, this endeavor is the focus 
of his work in his current position atl I where he "utilize[ s] statistical methods to find trends 
in medical data on these issues." The Petitioner claimed that his research to date has established a 
connection between I I and and has also revealed al I treatment that 
helps to significantly lessen the risk of The Petitioner claims that his continued 
research in this area, and generally in the field of medical~---~ will provide data on important 
shifts in the medical field, such as changing attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine, 
and will provide data enabling the early detection of.__ _____ thus decreasing mortality rates 
and costs associated with them. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The record indicates that the Petitioner earned a bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery from,....I ___ ___, 
University in 2007, as well as a master of ublic health MPH from thei::::::=JUniversit in 2011. The record also 
demonstrates that the Petitioner ha.,._,__ _____________________ ..., board certification. 
4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his current position to illustrate the capacity in which 
he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
3 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance, and we agree with that determination. The record includes information about the 
benefits of1 I research, the growing demand for complementary and alternative medicine, 
the perceived benefits of enhancements inl lresearch, and numerous letters of support discussing 
the potential benefits of his proposed research and how it stands to advance his field. The record also 
includes documentation indicating that the benefit of the Petitioner's research undertaking has broader 
implications, as the results have been disseminated to others in the field through medical journals. As 
the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed 
research, he 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 his curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical certification, and published 
articles. He also offered evidence of his peer review of manuscripts in the field, articles that cited to 
his published work, and letters of support discussing his past research studies. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he was well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his "in-depth education in the 
specialty" and his "long track record of experience in the field . . . has attracted the interest of 
established research groups in the field." He concludes that, based on "his education, skills, 
knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts," he has met the requirements of the 
second prong of the national interest waiver. (Emphasis in original). For the reasons discussed below, 
the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed research 
under Dhanasar's second prong. 
The Petitioner submits an article ublished in the Paci 1c Standard entitled 
L_ _________ ..r-__._'___...T=h=e_.a=rt=i=c=le._s=u=m=,marizes the results ofth J...._ ______ --,_J Study, a 
clinical trial conducted b d ~Univers:1 ID collaboration with.___ _ ____.University 
of Health Sciences, which documented a ne treatment approach. According to the 
Petitioner, he served as medical monitor on th project, and regards the article in the Pacific 
Standard as a record of his success. Although the record contains a letter froml I the lead 
investigator for the trial, who states that the Petitioner played a "vital role" in the study by ensuring 
patient eligibility and ensuring their safety, as well as liaising between investigators, coordinators, and 
other researchers, the article makes no mention, and gives no credit, to the Petitioner's contributions 
in this study. Merely asserting that he played a "vital role" in the study, without more, does not 
sufficiently outline the extent of his involvement in or contributions to this study, such that it 
demonstrates a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties as contemplated 
by Dhanasar' s second prong. 
Other letters supporting the petition discussed the Petitioner's various medical research projects. 5 For 
exampll reeardine the Petitioner's research involvinel , I as a risk factor for 
I I I assistant professor of internal medicine atl I university College 
5 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
of Medicine, and I at thel I Clinic, both stated that as a result 
of conducting database analysis of the '-:----,-------,-1---' maintained b the Clinic, the 
Petitioner was able to determine the links between and various risks, such as 
1 <lei llea · and,___-,----,---,-____, leading to I I 
According to.__ __ _. the aforementioned study was "cited in an international study of 
gement, published in the American Journal o Gastroenterology in 2015, that was used to 
create an international definition for the term .__----~-~__. and ultimately to produce some 
of the care guidelines now used for the disease in the United Kingdom." A copy of this article is 
included for reference in the record, 6 and indicates that the Petitioner's study, entitled D 
was cited once. Although the record also includes a June 2018 Google Scholar citation report 
indicating that the aforementioned article has received 30 citations since its publication in 2016, we 
note that the Beneficiary was one of eight authors of this study, and the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating the extent of his contributions to the study. The Petitioner has not demonstrated his 
level of involvement in this study, or that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a 
level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong. 
A letter by,___ ______ ____, director of thd I 
Medical Center, discusses the Petitioner's research with regard to the attitudes oJ !medical 
students toward complementary and alternative medicine. I !states that the Petitioner, 
through his research, sought "to increase the body of available literature on this topic," noting that his 
paper on this topic was cited 10 times. 7 Again, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this number 
of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties 
sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
The Petitioner also submits advisory letters discussing his research on th~ I stra .... in_o_f-=I ===;---' 
as well as his findings regarding the use of the drug~ ~s a safe alternative,....f~o_r.__ ___ ~-"--1 
orall lg used with aspirin to preve~ I followin 
placement. According to I I fellow m .__ _______ ~,........ at 
Universit Health Network he cited the Petitioner's finding in his 2013 article entitled 
.__ _______________ ~ __ ___,' and states that he recommends the use o~ I in 
place of.__~_~_. to other physicians based on the Petitioner's findings. I I however, 
does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's findings from this study has affected clinical 
guidelines or otherwise constitute a record of success in his field. 8 
While the Petitioner's references discuss a variety of medical research studies he has undertaken, they 
do not explain how these past projects position him to advance his proposed research aimed atl I 
I I and the prevention of I I as al !complication. Additionally, the 
.__----~~~----~------------~~-.,.... published in The American Journal; 
of Gastroenterology in 2015. 
7 The aforementioned Google Scholar citation report indicates that the Petitioner was one of three authors of this article, 
which was published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. The report further reflects that the article 
reporting their findings has been cited 13 times since its publication in 2012. 
8 The aforementioned Google Scholar citation report reflects that the article in Journal of Invasive Cardiology reporting 
his findings has been cited 14 times since its publication in 2011. 
5 
Petitioner has not shown that the limited amount of time his employer indicates that he will devote to 
research is sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance the aforementioned! I 
studies. For instance, the letter from the president o~ l his current employer, states that he 
will "investigate the feasibility of the application of a wide array of scientific principles/concepts as it 
relates to our research projects." (Emphasis added). The employer further states that the Petitioner 
specializes in software development, property management, IT development, and biotech research, 
disparate fields from his proposed focus onl I and notes that he will work on a number 
of specific research projects at the company's greenhouse. Based on these statements, it appears that 
the Petitioner's primary responsibility will be to conduct research on a variety of projects as 
determined b~ I Although the emP.loyer also indicates that the Petitioner will participate in 
a study exploring the relationship betweenl 11 I treatments, and I I 
which relates to his proposed endeavor, it also indicates that this is just one of a number of projects to 
which he will be assigned. Absent a breakdown of the percentage of time devoted to the 
aforementioned projects, it is unclear to what extent the Petitioner will be pursuing his proposed 
endeavor. 
Regarding citation of the Petitioner's work, the information from Google Scholar indicates that his 
four highest cited articles in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2015), Journal of Diabetes 
and its Complications (2013), The Journal of Invasive Cardiology (2011), and The Journal of the 
American Osteopathic Association (2012) each received 30, 24, 14, and 13 citations, respectively. The 
Petitioner also provided 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 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 his articles reflects a level of interest in 
his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
Regarding the Petitioner's peer review activities, he provided documentation indicating that he 
reviewed numerous articles for EC Gastroenterology and Digestive System. The Petitioner, however, 
has not documented the reputation of the journal or offered other evidence demonstrating that his peer 
review experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed research 
endeavor. The record does not show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread 
peer review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that 
he is well positioned to advance.__ _____ _. research as it relates tq I 
The Petitioner also refers to our non-precedent decision concerning a metallurgical engineer who was 
found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. Matter of F-E-, ID# 46885 (AAO Mar. 
20, 2017). This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers 
in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in 
the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Moreover, our finding 
in Matter of F-E- is significantly discernable from the present matter, and the Petitioner has not 
6 
demonstrated that the facts of that case are similar or identical to those in the matter currently before 
US. 9 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner's Master of Public Health degree renders him eligible for the 
underlying EB-2 visa classification, the Petitioner has not shown that his academic accomplishments 
by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may contribute 
to such a finding. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted and published research in the field o:te===l 
I I focusing on a variety of topics, including the prevention of1 I as aL__J 
complication, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned to advance his proposed 
cancer 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, funding, or academic credit, not every 
individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their 
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 his published 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 his work constitutes a record of success or progress in the cancer or medical 
biostatistics research fields. 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. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires a 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 he is eligible for a waiver due to his education, knowledge, and skills 
in biostatistical research and his research accomplishments. However, as the Petitioner has not 
established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
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 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
9 The petitioner's proposed endeavor in the cited matter was to "help the mining industry implement 'sustainable, 
profitable, and environmentally conscious practices to ensure the survival of the planet for future generations."' Contrary 
to the facts in the instant petition, the petitioner in that matter demonstrated how ·'his leadership role in research projects 
and, most importantly, his track record managing large scale mining projects, position him well to continue to advance his 
proposed endeavor of developing and implementing sustainable mining techniques." 
7 
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. 
8