dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10768082 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an anesthesiologist, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the 
Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
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. ... the 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 a 
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. 2 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director observed that, in a prior request for evidence (RFE): 
The [P]etitioner was informed the [initial] evidence did not establish the proposed 
endeavor had national importance. The [P]etitioner was farther informed the evidence 
did not establish he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Lastly, the 
[P]etitioner was informed the evidence did not establish 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. 
After summarizing the evidence the Petitioner submitted in response to the RFE, the Director noted 
that certain documents "do not carry any weight" because they "occurred after the filing of the 
petition," citing Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm.1971). The Director farther 
concluded that "[ w ]hile the [P]etitioner may have contributed to his field during the course of 
completing his education/training, the evidence does not necessarily establish that his contributions 
are of such value they are more important than protecting the domestic labor supply." The Director 
did not otherwise indicate that either the initial evidence or the evidence submitted in response to the 
RFE, much of which "do not carry any weight," established that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director 
1 In announcing this new framework. 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
further analyzed the record and concluded that it also did not satisfy either the second or third 
Dhanasar prongs. See id. at 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicated that"[ m ]y brief and/or additional evidence is attached." However, 
the Petitioner did not submit a brief or a statement regarding the basis for the appeal, as required in 
Part 3 of the Form I-290B. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) 
(incorporating each U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' form instructions into the regulations 
requiring its submission). Instead, the Petitioner submitted six exhibits of documents, most of which 
were already in the record, prefaced by a one-page exhibit title page for each document, respectively. 
The exhibits the Petitioner submitted on appeal are as follows: 
• The denial notice; 
• A new letter "again explaining why [the Petitioner] is not required to have a full 
NY [ medical license] at this time but he is eligible to apply for one"; 
• A copy of a letter initially submitted with the petition, which the Petitioner asserts 
addresses "[ w ]hether the [P]etitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor"; 
• Four pages of Google Scholar information, which the Petitioner again asserts 
addresses "[ w ]hether the [P]etitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor"; 
• A 19-page list that the Petitioner describes on appeal only as "Exhibit E" and 
"[ o ]riginally submitted list of [ e ]vidence"; and 
• A 30-page document that the Petitioner describes on appeal only as "Exhibit F" and 
"Response to RFE." 
The Petitioner did not state on appeal how the Director erred in concluding that the record did not 
establish either: (1) that the proposed endeavor has national importance or (2) that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial for the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 3 Instead, the Petitioner addressed the second Dhanasar prong, particularly in the title 
pages for the third and fourth exhibits listed above, and the issue of whether the Petitioner must have 
had a license to practice medicine at the time of filing, particularly in the second exhibit listed above. 
Because the Petitioner did not address the Director's conclusions regarding either the first or third 
Dhanasar prong, both of which are dispositive, we summarily dismiss the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). The scope of a motion on this decision will be limited to the issue of whether we 
erred in concluding that the Petitioner did not address on appeal the Director's conclusions regarding 
either the first or third Dhanasar prong. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
3 Furthermore, the extent of Exhibit E and Exhibit F's discussion of the proposed endeavor's national importance is: "[the 
Petitioner's] desire to serve the medical community is proven not only through his patient management but his dedication 
to clinical research, teaching medical students and also improve Hospital [sic] procedure. These all establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor: to be a clinical/researcher in the United States." That statement-which does not 
address how the Director erred in the denial notice-does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's patient management and 
dedication to research, teaching, and process improvement rises to the level of national importance, as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
3