dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nutrition Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2024 In Re: 33966963 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 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. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary 
waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude the national interest waiver determination is discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed this petition in October 2023. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a doctoral 
research student in the field of nutrition science at ______ in Washington DC. According 
to her school transcript, as of March 2023, the Petitioner has completed, three semesters of her PhD 
coursework and was in the process of completing her fourth semester. In addition to her coursework, 
the Petitioner provided evidence to establish she is a graduate assistant at ______ and that 
she is engaged in research and teaching in nutrition science. After analyzing the initial evidence, the 
Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting deficiencies in the record, to which the Petitioner 
timely responded. 
The Director determined the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree based on her U.S. master's degree in project management froml I I in Maryland, which she earned in May 2020. We agree. The issue on appeal is 
whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Prong One of the Dhanasar Framework 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. The term "endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed endeavor should 
describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the person will work, 
rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. Id. As such, we will first 
identify the Petitioner's endeavor as shown in the record. Then, we will evaluate the Petitioner's 
evidence in support of the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. 
B. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is described in her initial personal statement where she explains 
that she studies the effects of seaweed consumption on the microbiota of obese mice. She intends to 
continue researching this topic with the goal of determining if inclusion of seaweed vegetables in a 
western-type diet promotes healthy microbial profiles in the gut and reduces the development of 
inflammation, obesity, and metabolic dysfunction. She explains that "to [her] knowledge, no study 
2 
has clearly demonstrated how a seaweed vegetables-based diet changes the microbiome population, 
leading to a change in body weight." She also highlights that her research has been published in the 
following publications: Dietary Supplements and Nutraceuticals; and Functional Food Science. In her 
RFE response, the Petitioner provides an additional personal statement in which she explains that she 
will use her research on seaweed consumption to offer solutions to global obesity, and that she will 
employ her research and skills in machine learning and artificial intelligence to understand the 
complex interaction between seaweed's components, microbiota, and human metabolism to yield 
results that benefit society. Among the intended results, the Petitioner explains that her research will 
"pioneer nutrition-based solutions that harness the power of marine bioresources for global health 
improvement, leveraging the gut microbiota's role" to make healthier "microbial profiles," reduce 
obesity, improve metabolic function, and contribute to the field of nutrition sciences and potential 
dietary interventions for obesity management. And on appeal, the Petitioner provides a statement in 
which she contends that the Director erred and seeks a review of her application "in detail and without 
bias." Upon de novo review, for the reasons stated below, the record does not include sufficient 
information or supporting evidence to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor and 
its prospective impact. 
C. Analysis of Prong One of the Dhanasar Framework 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. As stated 
above, an endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Therefore, we agree with the 
Director's determination. However, while the Petitioner has established her proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she has not established its national importance, for the following reasons. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. Furthermore, in Dhanasar we noted that "[a]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id. The Petitioner asserts that the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor extends to 
public health and nutrition policy including a reevaluation of the nutritional guidelines. She asserts 
her research may lead to ecofriendly alternatives to current obesity management strategies, as well as 
highlight the importance of dietary diversity, and the nutritional value of underutilized food sources 
that will "unlock" the full potential of functional foods. The Petitioner asserts her endeavor advances 
national and global initiatives to combat hunger, and that multiple societal and economic benefits 
would flow from her endeavor, including investments in seaweed farming, which could transform 
fragile coastal communities by creating a sustainable way to alleviate poverty. 
In evaluating the national importance of Dr. Dhanasar's proposed endeavor, we gave significant 
weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, 
and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. 
strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in his specific 
research. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in 
evidence as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign 
3 
national 's eligibility, thus, the submission of these support letters is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. Id., see alsoMatterofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445,460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying 
weight that may be given expert testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative 
value). 
Although the Petitioner has provided multiple letters of support for her research, the letters do not 
sufficiently explain how her research will impact the field of nutrition science or matters of national 
or global importance more broadly. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 (standing for the 
proposition that to determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider the quality, relevance, probative value, and credibility of the evidence). First, 
many of the letters are from professors in the department where the Petitioner is pursuing her graduate 
studies, and while they describe her work in glowing terms, they do not provide enough detail to 
understand her endeavor's national importance. 2 Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Second, some of the letters lack the objectivity necessary for us to understand the national or global 
impact of her work, or its broader implications. For example, in one letter, the Petitioner's research is 
described as "groundbreaking," "trailbreaking," and with the "potential to revolutionize the way we 
approach nutrition and health," however these statements lack context. Id. Third, like the Petitioner, 
many of the writers emphasize the toll that obesity and a lack of proper nutrition have on society, but 
they do not provide a sufficient explanation to understand how the Petitioner's research will alleviate 
these problems. Id. Fourth, another writer, a professor of medicine at ______ appears to 
parrot the Petitioner's assertions that her research is innovative because it incorporates machine 
learning techniques and artificial intelligence. 3 The writer explains that the Petitioner's innovative 
research "amplifies the potential for significant contributions to our understanding of obesity's 
underlying mechanisms and effective interactions." The writer, however, fails to explain why the 
Petitioner's use of these technologies will amplify the impact of her research in a national, or even 
global, manner or implicate matters of national importance more broadly. Id. Lastly, a writer 
describes how the Petitioner's published research in peer-reviewed journals demonstrates the impact 
of her work, because it shows "her research has been circulated internationally, providing her peers 
with valuable information applicable to their scientific efforts." However, this statement does not 
conform with the fact that the Petitioner's published materials have been infrequently cited, and no 
information is provided to explain the contradiction. 4 Id. 
2 For purposes of any future petition, we note that some of the reference letters lack signatures that conform to our signature 
policy which prohibits signatures created by typewriter, auto-pen, stamp, or other similar device. See I USCIS Policy 
Manual B.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("Signatures"). 
3 We note that the Petitioner's initial description of her proposed endeavor does not include any mention of artificial 
intelligence or machine learning technologies. The inclusion of these assertions in response to the Director's RFE reduces 
the probative value of her statements, and may implicate Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(standing for the proposition that a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements) 
4 Google scholar notes the Petitioner has published the following three articles: 1)I 
12)1 
I and 3)1 
I Her third publication has been cited 
twice, while theoother twot_w_o publications ___show no c1tat10ns. See. 
https://scholar.google.com/scholar 
4 
I 
Other letters provide general support for her proposed endeavor but are insufficient to understand how 
her research will have a broader impact. For example, one writer, an assistant professor at the I 
of Medicine and Science, explains that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of 
national importance because it aligns with national initiatives and may have implications on 
reproduction in women of childbearing age, and public health. Another writer also generally explains 
that the Petitioner's research will have economic impacts because obesity has a societal cost but offers 
insufficient details to bolster this statement. We acknowledge these assertions, which speak to the 
substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, however, they are insufficient to establish the endeavor's 
national importance. Id. In analyzing a proposed endeavor's national importance, Dhanasar requires 
us to look beyond the field of endeavor, to examine the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, while we acknowledge the fields of 
nutrition, obesity management, and sustainable farming may be subjects of national or global 
initiatives, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not encompass a significant enough space in any 
of these fields to be considered of national importance. For example, in Dhanasar, we determined 
that the petitioner's teaching activities at a U.S. university did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. This is because in 
general, the benefit of teaching is only directly beneficial to the students being taught and not the wider 
population. Id. And, while one could argue that teaching one person has a broader impact because 
that individual now has knowledge they could impart to others, the connection between teaching one 
person and the broader impact that results from that knowledge is too amorphous to consider the 
endeavor itself to be of national importance. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Although the Petitioner asserts her endeavor could have potential impacts on the economy and societal 
welfare, she does not provide sufficient evidence to support these assertions. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. For example, to support her assertions that her endeavor has national and global 
implications on public health and nutrition policy, she provides evidence that the World Bank funds 
initiatives to combat hunger and that the National Institute of Food and Agriculture created a small 
business innovation research program to support research and development. She also provides news 
articles to understand the societal problem of obesity, the importance of nutrition, the role of seaweed 
to improve digestion because of the phytochemicals found in seaweed, and Biden Administration fact 
sheets discussing government initiatives to combat hunger and improve nutrition to create stronger 
communities. While we acknowledge the articles and reports provide a context for understanding the 
Petitioner's assertions, and helps establish the substantial merit of her endeavor, because none of the 
documents discuss the Petitioner's research or her proposed endeavor, the information does not 
establish its national importance through any asserted or cognizable positive economic effects or 
potential prospective impact on the economy and societal welfare. Id. Moreover, while a reference 
letter generally explains that the Petitioner's research will have economic impacts because obesity has 
a societal cost, this letter does not provide sufficient detail to understand how her endeavor will 
alleviate the societal costs of obesity. Id. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's evidence of her academic act1v1t1es including: the 
presentation of her research at conferences and symposia; submission and inclusion of her research 
posters in academic gatherings; the inclusion of her research as a book chapter; her receipt of a $500 
travel grant; her research publications; and her membership in professional associations. However, 
this information is considered as part of our analysis of Dhanasar 's second prong, where we examine 
5 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. 
Because a petitioner must establish that they meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework to 
obtain a national interest waiver, if even one of the prongs is not established, a petitioner is ineligible 
for this waiver. Accordingly, because she has not established her eligibility under prong one, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the second and third prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has 
not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6