dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2024 In Re: 33963897 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical scientist, 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 did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is 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 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 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. 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 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. While neither the 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. Matter of 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional. Based upon the evidence in the record that the Petitioner possesses the foreign equivalent 
of a Ph.D. in medical science, we agree. The Director also concluded that the proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance. However, the Director found the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver because he did not establish that he is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement 
would benefit the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director misapplied our 
precedent decision in Matter ofDhanasar, mischaracterized or overlooked evidence in the record, and 
erred by evaluating the evidence in a "piecemeal" fashion, considering each piece of evidence in 
isolation, rather than evaluating the record in its totality. For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor and therefore has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner proposes to investigate the mechanisms underlying autoimmune and inflammatory 
diseases to identify novel therapeutic targets and develop treatments for conditions such as multiple 
sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. The Petitioner states that he intends to continue to publish and 
present research to contribute to this field. As of the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner was 
working as a postdoctoral researcher at thel I 
While the first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor and whether it 
has substantial merit and national importance, the second prong shifts the focus to the individual 
petitioner and whether they are well-positioned to advance it. To determine whether an individual is 
well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited 
to: their 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. at 890. 
We first consider the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success. The record 
shows that the Petitioner has obtained the foreign equivalent of a Ph.D. in medical science. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or 
similar efforts are demonstrated by his research, record of citations, and letters of recommendation. 
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 USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
We consider the Petitioner's education, skills, and knowledge to be positive factors in support of his 
positioning to advance the proposed endeavor. Specifically, the Petitioner's Ph.D. in medical science 
and his work as a postdoctoral researcher relate to his proposed endeavor of investigating autoimmune 
and inflammatory diseases and developing treatments. As to his record of success in related or similar 
efforts, we acknowledge that the evidence in the record appears to demonstrate that the published 
works that the Petitioner has participated in and contributed to have been cited frequently by 
independent researchers at a rate that is high relative to others in field. While this is a positive factor, 
we do note that the works which have received the most attention appear to be those in which the 
Petitioner was one of several contributors. For example, in the Petitioner's most heavily cited work 
he was the tenth listed author. 
The next factors applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework are a model or plan for 
future activities and any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner contends that he will pursue his proposed endeavor while 
conducting research at the I I and that his citation record 
reflects his progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor. While we agree, as stated above, that 
the Petitioner's citation history is a positive factor in showing success in related or similar efforts, we 
disagree that the citation history sufficiently demonstrates progress toward achieving the proposed 
endeavor. As noted above, although the Petitioner appears to have participated in well-cited works, 
the record does not reflect that he was the principal or lead investigator in several of those works. 
Similarly, the record does not show that continuing in this postdoctoral position sufficiently 
demonstrates a model or plan for future activities. For example, the record does not show that the 
Petitioner has obtained or is working toward obtaining his own funding to pursue his proposed 
endeavor. Instead, the record appears to show that the Petitioner is assisting in projects that have been 
funded by other researchers. For example, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner stated that he had begun contributing to research related to infectious diseases and their 
vaccines. The Petitioner did not establish that this relates to his proposed endeavor of researching 
autoimmune and inflammatory diseases and their treatments. The record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate whether the Petitioner is advancing his own research or primarily supporting the research 
of others. We therefore conclude that the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's 
model or plan for future activities or progress toward achieving the proposed endeavor. 
The final factor enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar relates to evidence of interest from potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. Here, we similarly conclude that 
the evidence in the record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned 
to advance the endeavor. Again, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal his citation record as evidence of 
interest from relevant entities or individuals. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his work has 
"drawn considerable interest from investors." In support of this claim, the Petitioner points to evidence 
that the research in which he has participated was supported by funding from various organizations. 
However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain or demonstrate how this prior research receiving 
funding supports the conclusion that his proposed endeavor will have similar interest or support. 
Moreover, the record does not establish the circumstances in which this funding was received, for 
example, whether the Petitioner was involved with applying for and receiving this funding. By contrast, 
in Matter ofDhanasar, we noted that the petitioner had received "consistent" government funding of 
research projects in which he played a "significant" role, specifically that he initiated or was the 
primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many 
3 
of the grants. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893, Fn. 11. The evidence in the record regarding 
the Petitioner's fonding does not appear to be like in kind to the fonding received by the petitioner in 
Dhanasar. While the record shows that the Petitioner has participated in research that has received 
fonding, the record does not sufficiently establish that there is interest in or support for the Petitioner 
pursuing his proposed endeavor such that we would consider him to be well-positioned to advance it. 
Not every individual who has conducted original research and published findings will be found to be 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in 
Matter ofDhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of 
success, their model or plan for future activities, their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, 
and the generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In considering 
the record in totality, particularly the lack of funding or other concrete evidence of support for or interest 
in the Petitioner pursuing the proposed endeavor, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding his eligibility 
under the first and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-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 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner 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