dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-P-M-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 27, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
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. § ll 53(b )(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but that she 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 a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
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: 
Matter of P-P-M-
(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 of job 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. 1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are met. 
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 
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 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
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. 2 
11. 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 the Department of Radiology at the 
The record includes an undated letter from 
program director of diagnostic radiology residency, indicating that "has offered 
[the Petitioner] a faculty position working with the Cardiothoracic Imaging section and Nuclear 
Medicine division" set to begin in July 2019.3 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 
teaching and research. 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
In an August 2017 letter accompanying the Form 1-140, the Petitioner indicated that she intends to 
continue her "research in diagnostic radiology. She desires to utilize her training and skills in further 
research endeavors in positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and positron 
emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI), in the allied fields of nuclear 
medicine and molecular imaging." The Petitioner further stated that her "research interests are in the 
role of PET-CT and molecular imaging in the evaluation and treatment of heart disease, cancer 
patients, patients with liver and kidney failure, and patients with infectious diseases." 
The initial submission offered information about nuclear medicine and molecular imaging from the 
This information explained that the healthcare 
benefits of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging include "gaining a better understanding of the 
pathways of disease, quickly assessing new drugs, improving the selection of therapy, monitoring 
patient response to treatment, and finding new ways to identify individuals at risk for disease." In 
addition, the Petitioner provided letters from medical colleagues stating that her research has the 
potential to improve patient care in the imaging field in the United States. 
The Director acknowledged the broader implications of the proposed research, but noted that 
according to descriptions of the Petitioner' s current and future positions, the vast majority of her "time 
is and will be spent on clinical duties" at rather than medical imaging research. The Director 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about her current and prospective positions to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
determined therefore that the limited amount of time the Petitioner intended to devote to her proposed 
research was insufficient to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. In addition, while the 
Petitioner asserts she is "expected to function either as a principal investigator or as a collaborating 
physician with research projects," the record does not include sufficient information or supporting 
evidence identifying the specific research projects she intends to undertake at to demonstrate the 
nature and extent of her proposed research. 4 Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's evidence relating to her proposed research is not sufficient to satisfy Dhanasar' s first 
prong. 
With regard to the Petitioner's proposed "clinical care duties," an April 2018 letter from 
indicated that the Petitioner "will provide advanced imaging expertise to the general population of 
patients referred into the The Petitioner contends that because 
treats patients from throughout the country and "is among the 20 largest and best equipped in the 
nation," the "Petitioner by association, impacts the healthcare interests of the United States," and 
therefore her proposed clinical care duties are of national importance. 
Furthermore, regarding the Petitioner's prosed teaching duties, she presented a letter from 
professor of radiology at stating: 
[The Petitioner's] teaching duties to residents rotating through the cardiothoracic 
section will include daily mentoring in terms of educating residents to read and interpret 
chest radiographs, chest CTs, cardiac CT & MR, cardiac angiography, in addition to 
performing thoracic interventional procedures. She will also be required to provide 
residents with at least four cardiothoracic didactic lectures per year .... 
further indicated that the Petitioner's education of radiology residents "benefits the 
United States as a whole, as trains residents to provide excellent patient care throughout the 
country after they leave " In addition, asserted: "In the past ten years, 62% of 
radiology residents went to hospitals that provide services to the entire Southeast region of the United 
States (AL, MS, LA, TN, FL, and GA), while 30% have gone on to provide services across the nation 
( outside the Southeast region)." The Petitioner maintains that "hosts some of the top medical 
programs in America, and provides training to the next generation of physicians not just from Alabama 
but from all over the United States, thus establishing that [the] Petitioner's teaching duties are of 
national importance." 
With respect to the Petitioner's care of patients and educational duties at . while these endeavors 
have substantial merit , the record does not establish that her clinical and instructional work would 
impact the fields of diagnostic radiology , nuclear medicine , and molecular imaging or the U.S. 
healthcare industry more broadly , as opposed to being limited to the patients she serves and her 
medical trainees . The issue here is not the broader implications of and its radiology 
residency program or their cumulative effects on U.S. healthcare , but rather the potential prospective 
impact of the Petitioner ' s specific proposed work as a medical educator and radiology clinician. 
Accordingly , without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact , the Petitioner ' s clinical 
4 In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." Id. at 889. 
4 
.
Matter of P-P-M-
work as a radiologist and activities as a medical instructor do not meet the "national importance" 
element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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. 
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 care and teaching duties do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. In addition, we agreed with the Director's determination that, due to the small amount of 
time the Petitioner intended to devote to research and the lack of evidence regarding the nature or 
extent of her proposed research, it was insufficient to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
However, because the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed "research has broader 
implications for the field" (unlike her clinical care and teaching duties), our analysis under this prong 
will focus on whether she is well positioned to advance her proposed research. For the reasons 
discussed below, even if the Petitioner's proposed research had met Dhanasar' s first prong, the 
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned to advance that research under prong 
two. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic credentials, medical 
certifications and license, published articles, and conference presentations. She also offered citation 
and download reports for her articles, and reference letters discussing her medical training, clinical 
work, and research projects. 5 
In letters supporting the petition, several radiology professors discussed the Petitioner's research 
aimed at developing better practices for PET-CT and molecular imaging in the evaluation and 
treatment of heart disease, cancer patients, patients with liver and kidney failure, and patients with 
infectious diseases. For example, chief of imaging at the 
asserted that the Petitioner's "research was able to identify patients 
whose MPI [Myocardial Perfusion Imaging] scans worsened and was able to identify the patients who 
had the highest risk of mortality from CAD [Coronary Artery Disease] in this high risk group and 
suggest more close clinical surveillance .... " The record includes a Springer citation report showing 
that the Petitioner's article in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology presenting this work has been cited in 
ten articles. 6 She does not, however, offer comparative statistics demonstrating the significance of 
this level of citation within her field, nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her published 
and presented research constitutes a record of success or a level of interest in her work from relevant 
parties sufficient to meet this prong . 
In addition, . professo r of radiolo gy at stated that the Petitione r "recentl y 
authored a paper on the imaging of cardiac sarcoid" and that she is "at the forefront of developin g new 
imaging techniques and algorithms. " Similarly, professo r of radiology at 
indicated that the Petitione r' s research " projects have resulted in 
presentations at prominent national meetin gs and in publications in high impact peer reviewed 
5 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 Six of the ten articles listed in the Springer citation report reflect self-citations by 
5 
the Petitioner's coauthor. 
Matter of P-P-M-
journals." The Petitioner presents information from Springer Link showing that three of her articles 
in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology have been downloaded hundreds of times, but she has not presented 
evidence illustrating the significance of this information, or establishing that her research has been 
implemented, utilized, or applauded by those viewing it. The downloads of the Petitioner's articles 
corroborate that she has disseminated her findings, but they are not sufficient to demonstrate a record 
of success of, or interest in, her research. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
her diagnostic radiology career. 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 has not shown that her published and presented work has 
been frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the 
field, that it has affected clinical practice, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the 
broader medical community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her work constitutes 
a record of success or progress in her area of research. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that 
the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed research endeavor, she has not established 
that she 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 she is eligible for a waiver due to her education, research 
experience and accomplishments, past funding she received from government entities, and because of 
her long-term plan for continued work in the United States. However, as the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible 
for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong 
would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we find 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 reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition 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 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
Matter of P-P-M-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-P-M-, ID# 2591797 (AAO Mar. 27, 2019)