dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmaceutical Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13453932 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 13, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, 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 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 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 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. 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 
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) 
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 also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 4 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicates that he "currently 
works as an Assistant Professor and Pharmaceutical Chemist at [C-]" and asserts that he "will provide a 
strong benefit to the U.S. society and economy and I look forward to utilizing and developing my talents 
further with a U.S.-based organization, [p ]harmaceutical or academi[ c] research." His endeavor appears 
to span several fields of interest, including "[p ]harmaceutical chemistry; organic analytical chemistry; 
high-resolution mass spectrometry; x-ray crystallography; teaching university students; scientific 
research; pharmaceutical quality control; [and] industrial testing methodologies."5 He initially described 
his prospective endeavor, in relevant part: 
[The Petitioner] is prepared to work for any number of federal agencies devoted to 
global health. Specifically, he qualifies to support and provide consulting for the 
Department of State's Office of Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy 
(OGAC), which oversees U.S. global HIV efforts; the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID); and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
operating divisions, especially the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
Additionally, he could work for the [HHS] Office of Global Affairs, which leads the 
department's engagement with bilateral and multilateral partners. Domestically, [he] 
is also prepared to support public health initiatives on the U.S. homeland .... Not only 
would [the Petitioner] be instrumental in enhancing vital U.S. public health initiatives, 
given his background, he would also be of particularly valuable service in advancing 
the U.S.'s STEM education priorities. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for a detailed description of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, noting that where the record regarding the first Dhanasar prong is vague, USCIS 
cannot meaningfully determine whether the proposed endeavor meets the first prong requirements. In 
response, the Petitioner submitted a business plan in which he discusses his academic 
accomplishments and work history, and describes his plans for his endeavor, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 We note that, while information about the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is necessary for us to determine 
whether he satisfies the Dhanasar framework, he need not have a job offer from a specific employer as he is applying for 
a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
3 
I have contacted people in the [U.S.] and [plan] to get into the area of teaching and 
research, for that reason I am approaching colleges and university as a target. [T]o 
utilize my other expertise of quality control of active pharmaceutical ingredients, I am 
approaching pharmaceutical industries or targeting to establish as [a] consultant for 
pharmaceutical laboratories. 
He farther noted that he would first seek faculty and research positions at universities, then later would 
"develop [his] own consulting firm," which would "eventually" create employment opportunities for 
U.S. workers. After considering the initially submitted evidence and the material provided in response 
to his RFE, the Director concluded in his denial that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence 
sufficient to meet the first prong in Dhanasar, which requires a showing of both substantial merit and 
national importance, focusing on the spec[fic endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. 
Considering the totality of the evidence, we agree that the record does not substantiate the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor( s ). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "[i]t has been well-settled case law for over 30 years of enactment 
of Immact '90 that no job offer is required in the EB-2/NIW category," asserting that the Director erred 
in his decision and RFE by impermissibly imposing "evidence of fature employment or endeavor." While 
a job offer from a specific employer is not required in an EB-2 petition involving a national interest waiver 
request, in determining national importance in such cases, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the field, 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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. In Dhanasar, we farther 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. Here, the Petitioner has not established the specific 
endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the United States will have substantial merit 
and national importance. 
The Petitioner presents articles and information which discuss high-level, diverse areas of national 
concern to the United States, including its need for clean drinking water, better medicinal treatments 
for diseases such as diabetes, the shortage of workers in STEM-related occupations, and the challenges 
facing the global response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic, which he could focus on within his prospective 
endeavor. For example, the Petitioner indicates that he could provide consulting services to federal 
agencies who oversee "U.S. global HIV efforts." However, generally describing broad areas of 
experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner could consult with or provide advice to 
federal agencies without evidence is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor, and that it will 
have substantial merit and national importance. He puts forth vague assertions, stating for example 
that his "achievements to date are most impressive and make a compelling case that waiving [the job 
offer] requirement can only be in our interest." Notably, he does not discuss in sufficient detail how 
he would support United States' global HIV efforts through his proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner indicates in the "career plan" submitted on appeal that he has previously 
taught college-level courses within the organic and analytical chemistry fields and reiterates that he is 
pursuing faculty positions at U.S. universities. He asserts that he could share his pharmacological 
4 
expertise through teaching college students analytical techniques such as high-resolution mass 
spectrometry. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 
work. 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. In this 
case the record does not establish how the Petitioner's instructional work would impact the field of 
pharmacy, or the U.S. healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the students 
that he teaches. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points to previously submitted letters of support discussing his 
knowledge, skills, and work experience, but these letters do not sufficiently explain the national 
importance of his specific endeavor under the Dhanasar's first prong. For instance, the letter from 
Dr. S-, discusses aspects of the Petitioner's previous work in the field of analytical chemistry, noting 
for that he has conducted research focusing on the development of detection methods for: (1) 
identifying toxic levels of lead in drinking water, and (2) the presence of high levels of sodium in 
spices used in cooking meals for human consumption, as well as his involvement in projects to design 
new anti-microbial drug molecules. She asserts that the Petitioner's will "have more room to develop 
and implement [his scientific contributions] for the United States, and through his skills he will help 
our country "remain globally competitive in technologies while reducing the cost of domestic 
infrastructure rehabilitation." Likewise, T-I- favorably discusses aspects of the Petitioner's research 
and teaching career, maintaining the Petitioner "could be of great help in the infrastructure of the 
USA," and "will do excellently well as a high caliber profession[al] or an entrepreneur in any 
environment." 
While Dr. S- and T-I- provide general assertions about the Petitioner's skill and abilities, they do not 
sufficiently identify, analyze, or discuss how the Petitioner's proposed work will broadly impact the 
United States. 6 Without more, the Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor sufficient for 
us to determine that his work in the United States will have substantial merit and national importance. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit 
sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The 
Petitioner has not done so here. 
Notably, the Petitioner further asserts on appeal that the record "demonstrates that [the Petitioner] has 
[] education, skills, knowledge and a prior record of success." However, the Petitioner's knowledge, 
skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. 
6 We acknowledge that the letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard, but the letters in the record do not provide 
sufficient information regarding the specific endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in or adequately detail the national 
importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar' s first prong. The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters to determine whether 
they support the petitioner's eligibility. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
5 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. Accordingly, 
he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6