dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Sales And Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 05, 2023 In Re: 28153009 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical products sales and distribution specialist, 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 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 record did not 
establish it would be in the national interest to grant the Petitioner a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement. 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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 United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded, and the record demonstrates, that the Petitioner established her eligibility for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions possessing an advanced degree. 2 Therefore, the 
sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that she qualifies for a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a professional plan and statement indicating her intent to continue 
working in her profession as a medical products and sales distribution specialist for a company in the 
medical products or pharmaceutical sector. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner submitted a more detailed statement accompanied by a five-year business plan, in which 
she described her plans to co-found and serve as operations manager for a Florida company providing 
outsourced marketing consulting services and pharmaceutical sales team training workshops to clients 
in the pharmaceutical and medical products industry. The record reflects that the Petitioner gained 
approximately 10 years of experience as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Brazilian and 
multinational companies prior to relocating to the United States in 2019. 
The Director concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies any of the prongs under 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, and therefore did not establish that she should be granted a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
ignored or mischaracterized credible and probative evidence, misapplied established legal standards 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, and inflated the standard of review above the 
preponderance of the evidence standard. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor. While we do not discuss every piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner provided evidence that she completed four years of undergraduate study at a Brazilian university and 
graduated with the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree in business administration. She also completed a post­
graduate MBA course in marketing and possesses more than five years of progressive post-graduate experience in the 
marketing specialty. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 
The record includes occupational data for medical sales representatives as well as industry reports on 
the medical and pharmaceutical sales sector, its impact on the healthcare industry, and the role of this 
profession in ensuring physicians and their patients have awareness of and access to the latest medical 
advancements. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles and reports discussing the role of 
entrepreneurship in job creation and economic development in the domestic and global economy and 
the value of immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs as drivers of U.S. new business growth. Based 
on this evidence, the Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that her proposed endeavor to establish a 
marketing consulting and training services company in the medical and pharmaceutical sales sector 
has substantial merit. 
However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the individual will work. In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we look 
for broader implications" of the specific proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor will contribute to the economy as it will 
require U.S. workers and attract foreign direct investment that will be transformed into "new jobs, 
investments, and business opportunities" and "will contribute to ... the national interest." 
We have reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan. The Petitioner 
projects that her company will directly employ 19 fulltime and parttime employes in three states within 
five years and during that period, cumulatively pay wages of over $1.5 million, generate gross 
revenues of over $4.1 million, and contribute over $256,000 in tax revenue to the economy. 
However, these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis 
or an explanation of how they will be realized, nor do they demonstrate a significant potential to either 
employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. Specifically, the 
record does not support that the direct creation of 19 additional full- and parttime jobs in this sector or 
the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial economic benefit 
commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
While the Petitioner submitted industry data showing that marketing consulting is a high growth sector 
and a significant contributor to the U.S. economy, she has not demonstrated how a business that 
expects to generate $4 million over five years will have substantial positive economic effects on this 
sector, which generates billions of dollars in revenue and employs over 500,000 workers. 
The Petitioner states she intends to "help fuel small business rowth in historically underutilized 
business zones" in the cities ofl The accompanying business plan 
indicates her company will open branches in "selected HUBZones" in these cities but does not further 
elaborate on these plans. 3 The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that her business, which 
3 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
3 
had not yet been incorporated or secured physical premises, will have offices in one or more 
HUBZones. Further, she explicitly states that her proposed endeavor would not participate in the 
HUBZone program and would not be eligible to do so. While it appears the Petitioner may have 
intended to equate a designated HUBZone with an "economically depressed area," the record does not 
support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison. Finally, she has not otherwise claimed or 
provided evidence that the areas where her company intends to operate are economically depressed, 
that it would employ a significant population of workers in those areas, or that her endeavor would 
offer a region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, or related tax revenue. 
We recognize that the Petitioner's consulting activities in the medical and pharmaceutical field are 
intended to lead to improvements in sales and marketing strategies and employee training which may 
indirectly result in increased revenues for her business clients. However, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence that these gains would be significant enough to establish her proposed endeavor's national 
importance. The Petitioner's appellate brief also places particular emphasis on the potential for foreign 
direct investment. Although the Petitioner submitted articles about the importance of foreign direct 
investment to the U.S. economy, neither the Petitioner's statements nor the submitted five-year 
business plan address the proposed endeavor's potential for attracting such investments. Therefore, 
the record does not support a determination that any direct or indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. at 890. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
in her field or industry. We determined in Dhanasar 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. 
26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the Petitioner, through her company, intends to deliver both consulting 
services and employee training workshops to companies engaged in pharmaceutical sales. 
Like the petitioner in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not established how her teaching or training 
activities would have broader implications in her field that reach beyond the participants in her 
company's workshops. The record does not establish, for example, that she plans to disseminate her 
training methods or course materials such that her specific endeavor would provide a platform for the 
introduction of new training processes or methodologies or that she would otherwise be positioned to 
meaningfully influence how pharmaceutical sales representatives are trained in the United States. 
To further illustrate the potential impact of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to her past 
employment in medical and pharmaceutical products sales and her academic qualifications in 
marketing and business administration. We reviewed her statements and several reference letters from 
her employers and peers. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's abilities as a pharmaceutical 
and medical product sales specialist, her professionalism and commitment, her personal attributes, her 
subject area expertise, and her past contributions to her employers' organizations. However, they do 
not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has national importance nor do they speak 
to the potential broader implications of her intended work. As such, the letters are not probative of 
the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar' s second 
prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec at 
4 
890. The issue under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance 
of her proposed work. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from a university 
professor in the marketing field. In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the author 
emphasizes that the Petitioner will contribute to the medical product industry on a national level "by 
participating as a speaker in important sales and distribution events in the United States, such as 
congresses, seminars, fairs, workshops, lectures in universities and colleges and many others," and by 
having a positive impact on the revenues of companies that employ her services to increase their sales 
in this sector. However, the expert opinion letter is very general, significantly focuses on the 
importance of the overall healthcare industry, and does not address the Petitioner's five-year business 
plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein, its prospective substantial economic impact, 
or any broader implications of the Petitioner's intended consulting business in the field. 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter of 
D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) ( discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
While the Petitioner's evidence shows how her proposed endeavor stands to positively impact her 
business clients and their employees, it does not demonstrate how the endeavor will have a broader 
impact consistent with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that her 
proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning her eligibility under the remaining prongs of the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
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 reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5