dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Neuropathology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7147337 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician and researcher specializing in neuropathology, 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 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. 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. 
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 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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 Petitioner 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 working as an '1 bathology resident" in 
the Department of Pathology and Laborator Medicine at the University ofl ~- He 
provided a letter from University of Medical Center offering him an 
appointment in the Department of Pathology as a "Fellow in 'set to begin in July 2018, 
and a subsequent letter from University of School of Medicine confirming his 
employment. The Petitioner also presented an offer from ~--~Hospital and Clinics for a position 
as a postgraduate "fellow in Neuropathology beginning July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021." 4 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends to continue his neuropathology research relating to the 
pathophysiology and diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. He 
explained that his proposed research is aimed at understanding why certain individuals "are more 
vulnerable tol I" and identifying "the starting event which leads to 
I I in Alzheimer's patients and any other disease which are associated with D 
protein." The Petitioner also stated that he plans to undertake research involving "protective 
mechanisms from chronic traumatic encephalopathy" (CTE). 
The record includes information about neurodegenerative diseases from the Harvard N euroDiscovery 
Center and World Health Organization. In addition, the Petitioner provided web pages from the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences discussing traumatic brain injuries, Alzheimer's disease, and primary 
progressive aphasia (an initial manifestation neurodegenerative diseases). For example, the 
documentation from CDC indicates than an estimated "5 million Americans were living with 
Alzheimer's disease" in 2013. The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of his work. In addition to the aforementioned information from CDC and other 
health organizations, the Petitioner presented letters of support discussing the potential benefits of his 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 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. 
3 
proposed research and how it stands to advance his field. For example,! l research 
professor of neuroscience atl I University, asserted that the Petitioner's proposed work "is 
highly important to public health" and offers diagnostic "methods for the pathobiology of 
neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia and chronic 
traumatic encephalopathy." The record also includes documentation indicating that the benefit of the 
Petitioner's proposed research has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the 
field through medical journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial 
merit and national importance of his proposed neuropathology research, we conclude that he meets 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 5 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. As previously noted, 
his clinical work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Because the Petitioner's 
proposed neuropathology research has broader implications for the field (unlike his work as a 
clinician), our analysis under this prong will focus on whether he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed research relating to the pathophysiology and diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. For 
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, peer review activities, published articles, and conference presentations. He also offered 
evidence of articles that cited to his published work6, and reference letters discussing his past research 
projects. 
In letters supporting the petition, several professors discussed the Petitioner's research aimed at 
neurodegenerative diseases. 7 For exam le re arding the Petitioner's CTE research,! I I I clinical rofessor at Universit o stated that the Petitioner investigated j I 
" and found that such "compression ._r_e_d_u_c_e_d_t_h_e-:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_---_-_-_. ..... w-it_h_o_u_t_in-du-c1-. n-g-se_c_o_n_d_a_r_y_d_a_m_a_g_e__.inl I 
5 With respect to the Petitioner's patient care duties at the hospitals where he intends to work, while these endeavors have 
substantial merit, the record does not establish that his clinical work would impact the field of neuropathology or the U.S. 
healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves. Accordingly, without sufficient 
documentary evidence of their broader impact, the Petitioner's clinical activities 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. 
6 For instance, as of March 2019, the Petitioner's a1iicle in Neuropathology had received 31 citations since its publication 
in 2013. 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 expertise in his 
field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government 
entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic 
technology 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. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
care." Likew,.:.i=-se::..l]=======--1 a=s:::..::s:..::o:..::c.:.;ia=t:..::e....c:..:r-=o.c:.fe::..:s:::..::s:..::o.c:.r-=a:..:i.._ ___ _J.;=-n=1:....· v~e:.:.r.::cs1:..:· t.1....,2....a=s:::..::s:..::e.c:.rt:..:e:..::d:....:t:.::h:=a:.:..t .::th::.;e:....P::..-=.et.:::i.::ti:..::o.:.;n:..::e.:...,r 
researched ' 
and "observed a substantial reduction in ~-~ injuries and subconcussive 
1------.1-----, injuries."! I further noted that this "comprehensive assessment of the 
risk of~-----.....-~ following the use o~ I collars" was published in the Journal of 
Neurotrauma. e record includes a January 2018 citation report from Google Scholar indicating that 
the aforementioned article has received four citations since its publication in 2017. 8 
With respect to the Petitioner's work involving progressive aphasia,.__ _________ ___. 
rofessor of neuro atholo at Universit of indicated that the Petitioner found that 
contended that "[t]hese findings may 
potentially lead to the development of anti-inflammatory medications that treat the inflammation that 
is seen in this neurodegenerative disorder," but the Petitioner has not shown that his findings have 
been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the field. 
Re ardin the Petitioner's research~r_e_la_t_in"""'g"'--to_th_e---=====r--------------------' 
1-----L.:i;;:;;n:......::...A:c:l.::czh:;:.;eimer's disease,.__ ________ __. professor of pathology at Univeyity ofl 
, stated that the Petitioner investigated the role ofl I in 
._p_r_o-te-c-ti_o_n_a_g_a-in_s...,~•'---------.1 in neurodegenerative disorders and published his findings in 
Neurobiology of Ag~I f asserted that the Petitioner "found a significant association 
between age-relatedLJloss, tangle formation inl~-~~' anOpathology in epitopes." The record 
includes two additional letters of support from professors at the University of I I and 
University of I I who each provided two examples of other researchers that cited the 
Petitioner's article in Neurobiology of Aging in their published work. The aforementioned Google 
Scholar report reflects that this article has been cited nine times since 2015. The Petitioner, however, 
has not demonstrated that this number of citations constitutes a record of success or a level of interest 
in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
With regard to his peer review activities, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that he reviewed 
articles for Journal of Neurology & Translational Neuroscience, Pediatric Surgery: Clinics in 
Surgery, and Austin Journal of Clinical Pathology. The Petitioner, however, has not documented the 
reputation of these journals or offered other documentation demonstrating that his peer review 
experience rises to the level of rendering him well positioned to advance his proposed neuropathology 
research. Nor does the record show that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer 
review process represents a record of success in his field or that it is otherwise an indication that he is 
well positioned to advance his research endeavor. 
8 Two of these citations reflect self-citation by the Petitioner's coauthor! I The Petitioner provided October 
2017 data from Clarivate Analytics regarding baseline citation rates and percentiles by year of publication for various 
research fields, including "Neuroscience & Behavior." This documentation from Clarivate Analytics states that "[c]itation 
frequency is highly skewed, with many infrequently cited papers and relatively few highly cited papers. Consequently, 
citation rates should not be interpreted as representing the central tendency of the distribution." Regardless, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the number of citations received by his article in Journal of Neurotrauma reflects a level of 
interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
5 
As further evidence under Dhanasar's second prong, the Petitioner provided documentation of his 
plans for work as an .__ ________ ___, pathology resident at University of I I 
I 19, a cytopathology fellow at University ofl !Medical Center, and 
a postgraduate fellow in neuropathology a~ !Hospital and Clinics. On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that his "research has consistently been funded by large institutions" such as the 
aforementioned organizations, but the record does not show the specific amount of research funding 
or grants he has received to undertake his proposed research. 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during the 
training phases of his medical career, but he has not shown that this work renders him well positioned 
to advance his proposed neuropathology 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 proposed endeavor. 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 
and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in the neuropathology field, that it has 
affected diagnostic or treatment protocols for neurodegenerative diseases, or that it has generated 
substantial positive discourse in the neuropathology research community. Nor does the evidence 
otherwise demonstrate that his work constitutes a record of success or progress in researching 
neurodegenerative disorders. As the record is insufficient to show 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 medical training, 
knowledge and skills in his specialty, research experience and accomplishments, the importance of his 
field, and the impracticality of labor certification. However, as the Petitioner has not established that 
he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, he 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 second prong of 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. 
9 The September 2017 employment letter confirming this residency position stated that the Petitioner's "annual salary is 
$64,160." The Petitioner. however. has not explained how this compensation for his clinical duties constituted funding 
for his proposed research projects. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7