dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Obstetrics And Gynecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 18, 2023 In Re: 27463908 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician and professor of obstetrics and gynecology, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record reflects that determination.2 
The remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance. 
However, the Director determined that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 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. Upon de nova review, 
we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the 
labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a professor and academic researcher in gynecology and obstetrics 
at a U.S. university. The Petitioner's statement indicates she intends "to elevate the standards of 
medical education and the medical field by working as a medical professor and [sic] researcher 
developing new teaching techniques and innovations" in the fields of gynecology and obstetrics. She 
intends to continue her "development of pedagogical materials and techniques" for use in medical 
education. 
The Director determined that for the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner's endeavor 
has substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the record shows that 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a professor and academic researcher in gynecology and 
obstetrics is of substantial merit. However, upon de nova review, while we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of academic research relating to the development of 
pedagogical materials and techniques for gynecology and obstetrics has national importance, we do 
not agree that her proposed endeavor relating to her teaching activities as a professor to medical 
students has national importance. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma for a titulo de medico from 
I I Universidade I Iin Brazil in 2010, her academic transcripts, and an academic evaluation. The 
record demonstrates that she attained the foreign equivalent to a U.S. doctorate in medicine. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that " [a]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. Further, 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. 
With respect to the Petitioner's teaching ofmedical students, while this endeavor hassubstantial merit, 
the record does not establish that her teaching work would impact her field of obstetrics and 
gynecology or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her students 
and her employer. 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. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of the broader impact of her proposed 
teaching activities, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of being a professor for a U.S. university does 
not meet the national importance element of the Dhanasar framework. 
With respect to her academic research, the Petitioner asserts that she intends to conduct research to 
develop gynecology and obstetrics pedagogical materials and techniques for medical students. The 
Director's decision referenced two recommendation letters from the Petitioner' s colleagues who 
worked with her while she was a gynecology and obstetrics professor. The letters explain that the 
Petitioner developed academic projects for her classes, including a low-cost cervix anatomical model 
and entrustable professional activities for student knowledge assessment. Her colleagues attested to 
the projects assisting medical students' education and the record includes evidence of the Petitioner 
presenting the projects at conferences to professionals in her field . The record also includes research 
articles by the Petitioner about her pedagogical materials and techniques. Based on the record, the 
Petitioner has shown that her academic research has the potential to have a prospective impact on the 
field of teaching medical students. Accordingly, the evidence in the record demonstrates the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor relating to her academic research for developing gynecology and 
obstetrics pedagogical materials and techniques has national importance under D hanasar 's first prong. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. To determine whether 
an individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but 
not limited to 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. Id. at 890. The 
Director determined that, after consideration of these factors, the evidence submitted did not establish 
that the Petitioner was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor of research in her field. 
As previously noted, the Petitioner's teaching duties do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Our analysis under this prong will focus on whether the Petitioner is well positioned to 
advance her proposed academic research. Upon de nova review, the evidence in the record is 
3 
insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed academic 
research under Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The record shows that the Petitioner is a medical doctor and a professor of medical students 
specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. The Petitioner's statement indicates a part of her teaching 
is through realistic simulation, which is widely used in medicine and healthcare. She stresses her 
development of anatomical models for use by her medical students in simulation laboratories. 
Specifically, the record shows she developed low-cost cervical models for her students studying 
gynecology examinrltia □ s and nan test collection. She also developed activities to test student 
knowledge, including! Ian interactive monopoly-style game to review gynecology and 
obstetrics knowledge, and entrustable professional activities, practice units used for teaching and 
assessment. 
The record includes documentation of the Petitioner's statements, resume, academic credentials, 
medical certifications and licensing, training certificates, certificates of recognition, memberships, 
published articles, a book chapter, conference presentations, certificates relating to her teaching work, 
teaching materials developed by the Petitioner, and letters of recommendation relating to her teaching 
and the teaching materials she developed for medical students. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner received the foreign equivf'ent of a lJ S d □ crrate in medicine 
having received a titulo de medico from I IUniversidade.....______ _,in Brazil in 2010. 
While the Petitioner's education renders her eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she 
has not shown that her academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that 
she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, the petitioner held multiple 
graduate degrees, including "two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied 
physics, as well as aPh.D. in engineering." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor and education is merely 
one factor among many that may contribute to such a finding.4 Moreover, although the Petitioner has 
claimed on appeal that her advanced degree is in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 
field, she has not claimed that her proposed endeavor focuses on critical and emerging technologies 
or other areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security.5 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her record of success is evidenced in her being invited to and 
participating in conferences where she presented her pedagogical materials and teaching techniques. 
The record shows that the Petitioner presented her simulation teaching materials and active teaching 
techniques at conferences, including International Association for Medical Education (AMEE) and 
International Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare (I MSH). Although letters of recommendation from 
the Petitioner's colleagues at her employer university attest to the Petitioner's conference presentations 
and the use of her pedagogical materials internally, the record does not show these presentations led 
to use of her academic research and pedagogical materials outside of her students and immediate co­
workers. 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l) , https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). 
4 
The record includes articles co-authored by the Petitioner which were published in scientific journals 
and in a chapter of a book written by the Petitioner. The published materials relate to her active 
teaching methods and her development of materials for medical students. However, the record does 
not show that the published materials and the teaching methods and materials discussed in the 
publications have been used by others in the field or have garnered a level of interest from others in 
her field rendering the Petitioner well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner argues that recommendations letters from professionals in her field and her colleagues 
attesting to her development of pedagogical methods and materials demonstrate her being well 
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. The letters submitted are from professors the Petitioner 
has worked with at her employer university,! IAlthough her 
colleagues generally attest to the Petitioner developing specific teaching materials and to her 
conference presentations, they do not show that the Petitioner's research methods and dev lopedl 
materials have been used outside of her classroom or the university. For instance, a letter from1I I a medical genetics specialist and professor ate=] attests to the Petitioner being an excellent 
physician and clinical teacher having witnessed her commitment to enhancing teaching with low-cost 
simulation material and the publication of her master's thesis which was presented at a conference. 
Another letter froml lwho specializes in mastology and is a 
professor at D attests to the Petitioner's teaching and her "innovative skills" by creating new 
teaching material which have been noticed by "congresses" at the AMEE conference and by the 
international medical community. However, besides having her work presented at the conferences, 
the record does not show the Petitioner's materials or teaching techniques have been used in the field 
outside oft !students, or that other academic institutions have an interest in using her materials 
and techniques. 
The evidence regarding the Petitioner's previous development of pedagogical materials and teaching 
techniques does not demonstrate a record of success sufficient to establish that she is well positioned 
to advance her research. The record includes evidence that the Petitioner co-authored articles based 
upon her development of pedagogical materials and teaching techniques that were published in 
medical journals and that she presented her work at conferences. 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 the 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner has not shown that her research and development of pedagogical materials and teaching 
techniques have served as an impetus for significant progress in the field of teaching students of 
obstetrics and gynocology, or that her academic research work has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the broader teaching community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her 
academic research work and development of pedagogical materials and teaching techniques constitute 
a record of success or progress in her area of research. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner does 
not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
5 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the 
identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
find that she has not established that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6