dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5622890 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2019 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a resident physician, 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 the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). 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 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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 
1 In announcing this new rramework. 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 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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) 
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.,3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a "Resident Physician in Medicine at the 
I j.,4 With the appeal, the Petitioner presents a March 2019 l~e-tt-er_fr_o_m~-
1 Chief of the Division of Hematology and Oncology at 
I offering the Petitioner an appointment as "Assistant Profi~e-ss_o_r_1-.n-th_e_C_l_in-1-.c-a~l 
Educator path" set to begin in July 2019 .. 5 The evidence indicates that, in both of these positions, 
clinical care duties comprise most of the projected hours, with small amounts of time devoted to 
academics or research. 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 and prospective positions 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. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
In a January 2018 letter accompanying the Form I-140, the Petitioner indicated that he intends to 
continue his research involving the study otj ~ regimens for patients 
with acute leukemia. He further stated that his proposed research is aimed at understanding "both the 
effects ofl I and less taxing treatment alternatives." The record also includes a signed 
statement from the Petitioner discussing his "Future Research Plans." This statement identifies three 
cancer research projects that he intends to pursue: 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner submitted a January 2018 letter frorJ I Program Director o~ k Internal Medicine 
Residency, stating: "The position of Resident Physician offered [the Petitioner] encompasses three years of clinical 
training. Because it involves core medical rotations through general inpatient, critical care, and outpatient services in 
Internal Medicine, such training ensures that the medical graduates are prepared to serve the population after completing 
their residency. As a Resident Physician, [the Petitioner] is responsible for admitting and safely discharging patients 
through their hospital stay." A subsequent letter frornl J dated December 2018, asserted: "About 90% of [the 
Petitioner's] time is concerned with catering to the medical needs of the surrounding communities, whereas the rest of his 
time is devoted to his research. This means he spends an average of around 6-7 hours a week working on his research. 
However, [the Petitioner] is also given elective time equal to 9 weeks a year where he devotes 40 hours to his research 
each week." 
51 Is letter states that "[t]his is an academic appointment and requires a combination of teaching, patient care, and 
research, as well as administrative activities, that are necessary for the function of the Department and Division . . . . Your 
patient care activities will be initially based atl I Hospital and are expected to initially comprise 90% of your 
professional effort. You will participate in our Oncologic Hospitalist service .... " 
3 
I," and 'I 
L-----------r--1----------r-...J,.....!H~o.2.Js!L!,ital." In addition, regarding the Petitioner's 
research activities at ~-...., the letter from.__ __ _. indicates that the Petitioner is "expected to 
participate in retrospective studies relative to hematology and oncology." 
The initial submission offered information about the side effects of I lfrom American 
Cancer Society and a webpage from Cancer Research United Kingdom discussing the risk of infection 
after receiving! I In addition, the Petitioner provided letters from medical colleagues 
stating that his research has the potential to improve public health in the United States. The record 
therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. 
Regarding the issue of national importance, the Director acknowledged the broader implications of 
the proposed research, but noted that the Petitioner's work "primarily involves P.atient care and 
treatment." According to I I's description of the Petitioner's position at D, the vast 
majority of his time is and will be spent on patient care and treatment rather than his proposed cancer 
research projects. The Director concluded that the limited amount of time the Petitioner intended to 
devote to his proposed research was insufficient to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
While we share the Director's concern about the amount of time the Petitioner intends to devote to his 
proposed cancer research, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate this endeavor's 
national importance. The issue relating to the amount of time the Petitioner stands to spend on his 
proposed research is more relevant to Dhanasar' s second prong, and therefore we will further address 
the issue under that prong. 
Furthermore, the Director determined that the Petitioner's clinical work as a resident physician and 
hospitalist was insufficient to meet Dhanasar's first prong. With respect to the Petitioner's patient 
care and teaching duties atO andl l while these endeavors have substantial merit, the record 
does not establish that his clinical and instructional work would impact the field of medicine or the 
U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves and his 
medical students. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the 
Petitioner's clinical work and teaching activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework..6 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. As previously noted, 
the Petitioner's clinical work and teaching duties do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. In addition, the Director pointed to the limited amount of time the Petitioner intended to 
devote to research, indicating that the Petitioner's work atl tprimarily involves patient care and 
treatment." However, because the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed "research has 
broader implications for the field" (unlike his clinical care and teaching duties), our analysis under 
this prong will focus on whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed cancer research. For 
6 Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined 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. Id. at 893. 
4 
the reasons discussed below, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to 
advance that research under Dhanasar's second prong. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical 
certifications and license, published articles, and peer review of three manuscripts. He also offered 
evidence of articles that cited to his published work 7, and four reference letters from medical 
professionals discussing his medical training, clinical work, and research projects. 
The aforementioned reference letters focus mainly on the Petitioner's prior research aimed at 
continuing medical education (CME) programs in Pakistan, factors associated with the incidence of 
Polio in Pakistan, weight misperception among youth in Pakistan, the efficacy of strategies for treating 
patients und~lgoing a r~roidectomy, and the rates of HN, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C ID garbage 
scavengers in Pakistan. For example, I ) associate professor of internal 
medicine at University, asserted that the Petitioner's work "has contributed to the 
identification of factors that affect participation in CME activities." 
In addition, with respect to the Petitioner's research relating to youth weight misperception,I I 
I I clinical professor of medicine at University ofl j explained that 
the Petitioner found that "[ w ]hile male participants were more likely to underestimate their weight, 
female participants suffered from a high rate of overestimation." I I contended that this work 
"has contributed vital information to the study of weight misperception among children and 
adolescents." 
~ding the Petitioner's investigation of strategies for treating thvroidectomy patients, .... I ___ ___. 
L__J a cardiothoracic surgeon at I _ ] stated that the results of the 
Petitioner's work show "that drainage tube insertion following thyroi
1
ectom] is not universally 
necessary." Furthermore,! I a staff physician at indicated that the 
Petitioner's study of the rates of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C among garbage scavengers in 
I l"has improved our understanding of risk factors that contribute to disease transmission among 
garbage scavengers." 
While the Petitioner's four references discuss a variety of public health research projects he has 
undertaken, they do not explain how these past projects position him to advance his pro~osed research 
aimed at I l I I the I . I for 
I , • I patients, or other oncology-related studies. Additionally, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the limited amount of time his employers indicate that he will devote to research is sufficient to 
demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance the aforementioned cancer studies. For instance, the 
7 The Petitioner contends that he has a stronger citation record than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner in our Dhanasar precedent 
decision. While we listed Dr. Dhanasar's "publications and other published materials that cite his work" among the 
documents he presented, our determination that he was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his 
citation record. Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expeitise in his 
field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from fovemment 
entities such a~ I and~ position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of_ I 
,__ __ ___,!research." Id. at 893. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor and citations are merely one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding. 
5 
letters from.__ ______ ____. and~! ______ ~I both state that patient care activities will 
comprise 90% of the Petitioner's time. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner offers an article, entitled "Research shows professors work long hours 
and spend much of day in meetings," which discusses "preliminary findings of an ongoing study at 
I !University" conducted by I I This article mentions his faculty workload 
study's initial findings indicating that research "makes up just 17 percent of the work week and 27 
percent of weekend work." The article, however, goes on to explain thatl Is "study is only in 
its preliminary stages, and the findings from whatl lcalls Phase 1 are an)'!hing but conclusive. 
The sample size is small and participants were not chosen randomly (all 550 I l±ull-time 
faculty members were asked to participate but just 30 responded)." Moreover, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the preliminary findings from this workload study limited to faculty atl I 
University are relevant to those in the cancer research field. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted and published different types of medical 
research during the training phases of his career, 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 his or her proposed research. 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 oncology field, that it has affected clinical practice 
for cancer treatment, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the oncology research 
community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work constitutes a record of success 
or progress in any of his proposed areas of cancer research. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate 
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 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his research and clinical 
skills and accomplishments, and based on the impracticality of labor certification and furthering U.S. 
healthcare interests. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner attended medical school at~University of~I -----~ 
in Pakistan and received his Bachelor of Medicine Bachelor of Surgry in lo 14. After receiving his 
license to practice medicine, he began training in internal medicine a but did not complete his 
residency until after the petition's filing date. The Petitioner contends that because he was 
participating in a medical residency program, he was unable to obtain a permanent labor certification. 
While the record indicates that the Petitioner has some experience in public health research, he has not 
demonstrated that he has sufficient expertise or a record of success in his proposed endeavor of cancer 
6 
research. Nor has the Petitioner shown that the national interest in his research contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant foregoing the labor certification process. Moreover, the evidence from 
I I indicates that the Petitioner stands to devote only a small percentage of time to his 
proposed research, and he has not demonstrated that, assuming other qualified U.S. cancer researchers 
are available, the United States would benefit from this contribution. For these reasons, he has not 
established that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United 
States at a level sufficient to warrant a waiver of the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 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. 
7