dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-M-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 28, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a medical researcher and psychiatrist, 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). After the 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 otTer and thus of a labor 
certification. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 additional documentation and argues that she is eligible for a 
national interest waiver and that the decision contained "erroneous conclusions of law and fact." In 
May 2017, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide evidence 
satisfying the three-part framework set forth in Dhanasar. The Petitioner did not respond to our 
RFE. 
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. 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. 
Matter of J-M-C-
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 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 recently 
set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. See 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 
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) (NYSD07). 
2 
Matter of J-M-C-
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 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 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that she works as a "medical scientist/entrepreneur" specializing in 
psychiatry. She states that she intends to "establish a psychiatric clinic and mental health education 
center" where she can share her "special knowledge and experience with other medical researchers, 
psychiatrists, psychologists, and patients." Since Dhanasar was issued before we adjudicated the 
petition, we issued an RFE to obtain additional information and evidence regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the new framework. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) (requests for evidence). 
A. Appeal Abandoned 
We may summarily dismiss an appeal if the Petitioner does not respond to our RFE. The regulation 
provides, in pertinent part: 
If the petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of 
intent to deny by the required date, the benefit request may be summarily denied as 
abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. 
8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(13 )(i). Our RFE specifically informed the Petitioner that "[ w ]e may dismiss 
your appeal if we do not receive your response to this RFE within 48 days of the date on the cover 
letter. This time period includes 3 days added for service by mail." (Emphasis in original.) To 
date, more than 48 days have lapsed, and we have yet to receive a response from the Petitioner on 
issues we discussed in the RFE. As such, we will summarily dismiss the appeal as abandoned 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). 
B. Eligibility under the Dhanasar framework 
In the alternative, we find that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she satisfies the requirements 
set forth in Dhanasar. First, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar ·s first prong. While the Petitioner 
indicates that she intends to "establish a psychiatric clinic and mental health education center," she 
has not provided sufficient details about the size, location, and staffing of this establishment, nor has 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
.
Matter of J-M-C-
she provided information about the population she proposes to serve or the topics she aims to 
research. Without additional information and evidence, the Petitioner has not established the 
implications of her proposed endeavor or its potential prospective impact on the United States. 
With respect to the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a 
record of success or progress in her field, or a degree of interest in her work from relevant parties, 
rising to the level of rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's resume, 
documentation of her attendance at conferences and seminars, professional memberships, and 
medical training credentials. The record also contains treatment protocols and records including 
obesity treatment, obesity injection therapy, aromatherapy, vitamin injection therapy, and Myers' 
cocktail treatment. She has not explained whether she developed these treatments, the extent to 
which they have been used by other interested parties, or otherwise described how they show a 
record of success in her field or interest in her work from relevant parties. 
Furthermore, the reference letters discussing the Petitioner's work do not provide sufficient detail 
explaining how her work renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. For 
example, Dr. a professor at _ _ 
commented that the Petitioner's skills and expertise set her apart from other psychiatrists in the field, 
and Dr. senior doctor at wrote that the Petitioner's "most 
noticeable accomplishment" is her "unique methods to treat difficult mental diseases numerous time 
and allowed patients to regain their normal life and become healthy member of society (sic)." These are 
general statements affirming the Petitioner's clinical acumen; however, they do not indicate, for 
example, that her findings have been employed by government or private sector entities, that her 
work has affected psychiatric treatment practices, or that her clinical practice otherwise renders her 
well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that she intends to establish a psychiatric clinic and mental health 
education center in the United States. However, she has not provided evidence or information 
demonstrating a history of success in any similar entrepreneurial endeavors, showing the interest of 
relevant parties in her proposal, documenting how she will secure funding, or otherwise establishing 
that she is well positioned to start the business she described. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not established 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. She has not, for instance, 
sent information or evidence outlining why a labor certification would be impractical in her case; 
whether the United States would benefit from her contributions even if other U.S. workers are also 
available; or whether urgency warrants foregoing the labor certification process. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner did not respond to our RFE seeking evidence to establish eligibility, the appeal is 
considered abandoned. In addition, as the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in 
4 
Matter of J-M-C-
the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established eligibility for or otherwisE 
merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-M-C-, ID# 123352 (AAO June 28, 2017)