dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pediatrics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 In Re: 29137562 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pediatrician, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 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 I&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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must a United 
States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 889 (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: 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director stated in their request for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner was eligible as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, acknowledging her foreign medical degree and the 
evaluation stating its equivalency to a first professional degree in medicine in the United States. While 
the Director did not include this conclusion in their decision, we agree with this and conclude that the 
Petitioner has established her eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification. So the sole remaining 
issue on appeal is whether she merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, concerning the substantial merit and national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner states that she intends to continue working as a pediatrician in the United States. In a 
document titled "Professional Business Plan," it is stated that she will participate in an "observership" 
in a pediatric hospital, "start a research fellow[ ship]," and study for and pass the medical residency 
test. She also briefly mentions that in addition to working in a hospital, she will open her own pediatric 
medical office. In addition, she states that she intends to carry out scientific research in the United 
States, and it is stated in her "professional business plan" that she will publish articles in "PUBMED, 
JAMA, Cochrane, and New England, among other important scientific platforms for medical 
professionals worldwide." 
As noted above, we focus on a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor when evaluating its substantial 
merit and national importance, and we agree with the Director's statement that the record lacks a 
detailed description of the proposed endeavor in this matter. This is particularly the case regarding 
the Petitioner's briefly stated plans to pursue medical research and open her own medical office or 
clinic. We note that the petitioner in Dhanasar provided a very detailed description of his research 
plans, focusing on hypersonic propulsion systems, computational fluid dynamics, and applications of 
research in these areas on the development of aircraft and spacecraft propulsion systems. Id. at 891-
2. Here, other than announcing her ambitious plan to be published in leading medical journals, the 
1 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an 
unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in 
nature). 
2 
Petitioner has not described the specific focus of her proposed research, or where or by what means 
she would conduct her research. Similarly, her brief statement of her desire to open a pediatric medical 
office or clinic is insufficiently detailed to support a finding under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. Although the "professional business plan" includes sections titled "target 
market," "marketing," and "solutions," these include broad statements about the health care industry 
or details about the Petitioner's career, not specific information about her proposed office or clinic. 
We will therefore focus only on her proposal to be employed as a pediatrician in a hospital in the state 
of Florida, as the duties of a practicing pediatrician are sufficiently described. 
Regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the Director stated in their RFE 
that this element had been established, but did not reach this conclusion in their decision or provide 
analysis. As such it is not apparent on which evidence in the record the Director relied in evaluating 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. In a cover letter from the Petitioner's previous 
representative, 2 statistics concerning the health care industry in general are given without any 
supporting evidence. An expert opinion letter provides many of the same statistics about the economic 
impact of the health care industry, and adds information about the number ofunderinsured Americans 
and state of the Brazilian healthcare system without explaining the relevance of this information to the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. While merit may be established in a number of broad areas, including 
health, the record lacks sufficient documentation establishing how the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor meets this requirement. The Petitioner's reliance on broad, unsupported statements 
concerning the healthcare industry in the United States is insufficient to establish the substantial merit 
of her proposed endeavor. 
Turning to the national importance of her proposed endeavor to provide pediatric patient care, on 
appeal the Petitioner refers to the statements made in her initial filing regarding her provision of 
pediatric patient care. She states that her work will lead to "lower spending on the treatment of 
diseases" and "a significant reduction in the number of intensive care unit admissions and chronic 
patients who need palliative care." To establish the national importance of their proposed endeavor, 
petitioners must show that it would potentially have broader implications in their field. Id. at 889. 
While the Petitioner's provision of patient care would likely impact individual patients, she has not 
demonstrated with supporting evidence how her work as a pediatrician would result, directly or 
indirectly, in the widespread economic and healthcare impacts she claims. Much like our 
determination in Dhanasar that the petitioner had not demonstrated how his work as teacher in STEM 
subjects would have broader implications for STEM education overall, here we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor as a pediatrician would have broader 
implications in the healthcare industry, and thus would be of national importance. 
The record also includes copies of the Petitioner's training certificates, documentation of her 
employment and wage history, an abstract authored by the Petitioner and published in a medical 
journal, and letters of recommendation. For example, the letter from I I 
confirms the Petiitoner's participation as a physician in a clinical study of I I virus. 
Another letter confirms her work as a pediatrician at the I I 
But this evidence pertains not to the national importance of her proposed endeavor, but to her ability 
to advance that endeavor as required under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2 The Petitioner submitted a new G-28 when responding to the Director's RFE. 
3 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
endeavor is of substantial merit or national importance. 
III. CONCLUSION 
A petitioner must meet all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework in order to establish 
their 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 the second and third prongs of the framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
( 1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4