dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 33795240 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical technologist, 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 Petitioner qualified 
for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed 
a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner bears the 
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements 
and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
Specifically, we concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. See id. at 889 (providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, the petitioner must establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts we incorrectly stated that certain submitted evidence 
relates to his field of endeavor rather than his specific proposed endeavor and we erred in concluding 
that the record does not show the potential impact and broader implications of his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner argues that the evidence pertains to his endeavor of "assessing the accuracy and 
reliability of diagnostic testing devices to detect infectious diseases through the development and 
implementation of quality control systems, protocols, and methods" and though the record also 
pertains to the field, it specifically discusses his proposed endeavor. He contends, for example, that 
the articles and reports detailing the importance of validating diagnostic tests for infectious diseases 
and ensuring the rapid and accurate establishment of a microbial cause reflect the importance of both 
the reliable diagnostic testing field and his specific endeavor of assessing the accuracy of diagnostic 
tests. The Petitioner reiterates that the submitted evidence shows his endeavor is nationally important 
because it enhances public health and the welfare of the American people by contributing to the 
accuracy of medical testing devices, it has broader implications within the field of medical technology, 
it impacts matters described by the government as nationally important and the subject of national 
initiatives, and it carries substantial positive economic effects. 
In our prior decision, we addressed the relevant evidence and determined it did not demonstrate any 
broader implications of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in his field at a level of national importance . 
See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential prospective 
impact" and "broader implications"). We acknowledged the Petitioner's statements regarding the 
impact on public health of dependable testing for infectious diseases and noted that the record indicates 
that reliable testing kits are crucial to public health. However, we noted that the submitted evidence 
relates to the substantial merit and importance of the field of diagnostic testing, rather than the broader 
implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. We also found that the Petitioner's reference to 
generalized economic impacts of accurate diagnostic testing was not sufficient to establish the national 
importance of his endeavor. Specifically, we determined that without sufficient information or 
evidence regarding any projected economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work 
(as opposed to the general economic impact of the industry), the record did not show that benefits to a 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Petitioner's 
assertion on motion that the evidence demonstrates the national importance of his specific endeavor is 
not supported by the record. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2