dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 18, 2024 In Re: 30543163 
Appeal of Texas Service Center 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 record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once 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 I&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
• 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. While we agree with the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of his endeavor, which falls 
within the range of areas (health) we concluded could demonstrate substantial merit, the Petitioner has 
not shown that his endeavor has national importance. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner intends to work in the United States as a medical technologist 
"validating the accuracy of diagnostic tests for infectious diseases," including self-diagnostic, at-home 
test kits for the viral detection of various infectious diseases including SARS-CoV-2 (the virus 
resulting in COVID-19), influenza, parainfluenza, and other viruses causing respiratory tract 
infections. In his initial filing, the Petitioner explained his intent to "implement and develop 
intralaboratory protocols and methods that [will] verify the accuracy, effectiveness and sensitivity of 
[these] diagnostic tests," explaining that his work would "allow laboratories to perform ongoing 
quality control of diagnostic tests to determine the reliability of certain test kits ... [and] report any 
inaccurate test kits to the appropriate authority." The Petitioner's personal statement elaborated on 
his objectives and the methodologies he planned to use to perform validation tests, noting he would 
follow the protocols recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the validation 
guidelines provided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). In addition to his personal statement, the record also contains several articles 
discussing the importance of accurate diagnostic testing to combat the spread of infection diseases, the 
importance of public health, the impact of infectious diseases and pandemics on the U.S. economy, 
White House publications regarding the impacts of COVID-19 and the country's response to the 
pandemic, as well as several FDA communications regarding recalls of multiple SARS-Co V-2 test 
kits. 2 
After issuing a request for evidence (RFE) granting the Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the 
record with additional information and evidence to establish his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver, the Director denied the petition, concluding that he had not established eligibility for the 
requested national interest waiver, as he did not satisfy the Dhanasar three-prong framework. 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the evidence on record, 
highlighting the duplicative nature of the language contained in the Director's decision and their RFE. 
The Petitioner cites to Chursov v. Miller, 1:18-CV-02886-PKS (S.D. NY 2019), stating that a "failure 
to adequately consider the totality of the submission was arbitrary and capricious." And the Petitioner 
also relies on Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support of his assertion that the 
Director erred in failing to consider all the evidence in its totality. But the court in Buletini did not 
reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. Likewise, the 
Petitioner's reliance on Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995) for its holding that the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service acted without rational explanation and abused its discretion 
when it failed to weigh important factors and state its reasoning for denying relief is not persuasive. 
In Muni, the court pointed to the Director's failure to properly consider persuasive evidence that 
established eligibility as an abuse of discretion. Here, the Director's decision did discuss the evidence 
directly relating to the Petitioner's specific endeavor (his personal statement) and provided an 
explanation as to why it did not meet the first Dhanasar prong. When USCTS provides a reasoned 
consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically 
address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor it is necessary for it to address every piece of evidence 
the Petitioner presents. See, e.g., Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long as [USCTS] 
has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that 
it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner 
presented." (cleaned up)); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board 
of Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention"). 
Moreover, although we agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not directly discuss every piece 
of evidence he considers as salient to establishing the national importance of his endeavor, the 
Petitioner has not established that those omitted documents-primarily the articles on the importance 
of accurate diagnostic testing-establish that his specific endeavor is of national importance. As such, 
the Director's alleged error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at, 
350 n.5 (citing Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th Cir. 2010) (stating that error is harmless 
where there is no "reason to believe that ... remand might lead to a different result" ( citation 
omitted))). 
Upon a de novo review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record does not establish the 
Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance contemplated under Dhanasar. We said 
that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader 
implications" resulting from the proposed endeavor, noting that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. 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. 
While the Petitioner contends the Director "failed to assess all the evidence in the record," the 
Petitioner has not established how the evidence the Director did not specifically discuss establishes 
3 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. For example, the Petitioner continues to rely 
on the importance of the diagnostic testing field without establishing that his specific endeavor rises 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner asserts that the "articles submitted support the 
conclusion that [the Petitioner's] proposed activities hold national importance because they have 
broader implications within the field of health (by promoting the circulation of more accurate and 
reliable testing devices)"; however, this misapplies Dhanasar 's first prong. The articles do not discuss 
the Petitioner's specific endeavor or explain how his endeavor will be of national importance or 
otherwise lead to broader implications within the field. As mentioned above, when determining 
whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we focus on the Petitioner's "specific 
endeavor," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession. Id. at 889 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his endeavor is of national importance for four primary reasons: 
(1) the implementation of quality controls helps to ensure that testing devices are thoroughly checked 
and accurately detect specific viruses; (2) the introduction of protocols to validate testing devices leads 
to advances for the entire field of medical technology; (3) the validation of the reliability of diagnostic 
testing devices has a substantial positive impact on the U.S. economy and enhances societal welfare 
for the American people; and (4) the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic testing has been deemed 
nationally importance by government entities and is the subject of national initiatives. Yet, these 
assertions generally relate to the importance of validating diagnostic tests for infectious diseases, 
rather than the Petitioner's specific endeavor. Moreover, the evidence on record does not support the 
conclusions that any protocols used by the Petitioner will directly result in broader implications to the 
field. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In the same way 
teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact 
on the field of STEM education, the Petitioner's endeavor, which will only benefit the laboratories 
where the Petitioner is employed and/or their customers, would not have broader implications in the 
field. Dhanasar at 893. 
Likewise, the Petitioner's assertion that his endeavor is of national importance because it relates to 
national initiatives is not persuasive. The record does not support a conclusion that his specific 
endeavor will offer "broader implications" to the validation of diagnostic testing or the national 
initiatives surrounding diagnostic testing, and he has not provided a sufficiently direct connection 
between his specific work and these national initiatives. While the Petitioner has identified a lab who 
is "interested in [his] consulting services in order to validate the tests that are performed there," the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's work at this laboratory would rise to the level of national 
importance. For example, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific work at this laboratory has 
broader implications to the field, or that he will be using or introducing improved processes or medical 
advances which would lead to broader implications within the field. See Id. at 889. Likewise, while 
we do not disagree with the Petitioner's statements that "[t]he achievement of public health hinges on 
dependable testing for infectious diseases enabling the detection, treatment and prevention of such," 
and "the record supports the conclusion that early, effective and reliable testing kits are crucial to 
public health," these relate to the substantial merit and importance of the field of diagnostic testing, 
rather than the broader implications of the Petitioner's specific endeavor. 
4 
The Petitioner has also asserted that his endeavor will contribute to the economy, arguing that a decline 
in public health generally has detrimental effects on the economy, whereas his endeavor will assist 
public health, and therefore will have a positive impact on the economy. Yet, the Petitioner cannot 
rely on the generalized economic impacts of accurate diagnostic testing as sufficient to establish the 
national importance of his endeavor. 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 does 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. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does 
not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 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 ofL-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5