dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmaceutical Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 02, 2024 In Re: 31109339 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § l 153(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 the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner qualified for a national interest waiver. 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 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. 
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." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCTS 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
TT. ANALYSTS 
Although the Director's decision did not discuss whether the Petitioner qualified for the underlying 
EB-2 classification, the request for evidence (RFE) included a determination that she qualified as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. 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 Petitioner stated that she intended to conduct remote follow-up with women in the United States 
who received COVTD-19 vaccinations to detect adverse reactions. The Director concluded that, while 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, she did not demonstrate that her proposed 
endeavor had national importance. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order to 
establish her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, 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. 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. 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. 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. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Comts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner initially submitted reports, articles, White House statements, a briefing transcript, and 
executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry, the 
economy, and immigration. While this material provides general information related to the impact of 
the pandemic, it does not provide insight into the Petitioner's plan to conduct pharmacotherapeutic 
follow-up to detect blood clots in women in a particular age group or show how this specific endeavor 
would have a potential prospective impact of national importance. 
The record also includes letters of recommendation from the Petitioner's former work colleagues 
discussing her experience and emphasizing how her expertise will be of value to the nation. We note 
that evidence of the Petitioner's job experience and performance is generally not relevant to the 
national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter ofDhanasar, but to the 
second.2 As such, the letters do not sufficiently demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner initially provided the following explanation of her proposed endeavor: 
My proposal for the United States is to use all of my nearly 20 years of experience in 
the health industry as a Pharmaceutical Chemist to develop a pharmacotherapeutic 
follow-up for younger women, aged 40 to 60 years, post COVID-19 vaccine for 15 
days to prevent and detect blood clots and possible outcomes such as death in the U.S. 
population. 
This study can help all women to avoid a fatal event of death from thrombosis if a strict 
daily follow-up through [monitoring] symptoms is carried out for 15 days after the 
application of the vaccine, either initial or booster, by means of a WhatsApp application 
that allows monitoring the symptoms related to the appearance of symptoms and 
directing the patient to [a] nearby medical center quickly. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided the following in a statement: 
My proposed endeavor is to take advantage of my extensive experience in the health 
sector as a pharmaceutical chemist in pharmacotherapeutic monitoring to improve 
women's health in the United States through promoting pharmateherapeutic [sic] 
follow up of adult women in order to allow early detection or treamtent [sic] of vaccine 
related adverse events, prevent events that compromise womens [sic] health, and 
improve the U.S. healthcare system. 
2 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
3 
My work will contribute to advancements in the field through sharing the results of my 
program with colleagues to nourish the pharmacovigilance information centers 
(universities and hospitals) through publications, symposia and congresses that support 
my advances in pharrnacotherapy which will increase the applicability of the 
information they provide and the final objective of the reviews of the method will be 
none other than the patient and his [sic] health. 
The Director concluded in the denial notice that, while the Petitioner had established the substantial 
merit of her proposed endeavor, she had not established its national importance. The Director 
determined the Petitioner did not show that the benefits of her proposed endeavor would extend 
beyond the individuals she would serve and impact the industry or field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director abused her discretion and did not fully analyze the 
evidence of record. The Petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence established the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor and contends that the Director did not analyze all of the evidence 
or consider her endeavor's potential impact on the social welfare of the United States. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner's plans to encourage the prevention and early treatment of health 
complications in women from COVID-19 vaccinations could have potential benefits. However, while 
the ultimate goal of a proposed endeavor may be to enhance societal welfare, we must consider the 
endeavor's significant potential to prospectively do so. 3 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how she would execute her proposed endeavor. The 
Petitioner has not discussed any logistics necessary in carrying out her endeavor. For example, she 
has not explained with sufficient detail how she would implement her project with pharmacies to 
recrnit participants at a scale that would have a national impact. Likewise, she has not addressed the 
issue of how pharmacies would motivate a nationally significant number of women between the ages 
of forty and sixty to volunteer for the project and provide their medical information through an instant 
messaging application. The Petitioner also has not explained how she expects pharmacies to collect 
and organize patient data and to respond to individual participants. It is noteworthy that the Petitioner 
does not discuss or document any previous experience undertaking a similar project of any scale, nor 
does any of the evidence of record contemplate funding for the project or other motivating factors to 
incentivize the participation of pharmacies or female participants. The Petitioner's lack of experience 
in previously engaging in a study similar to that described and the absence of financial resources to 
realize the project are relevant to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor can credibly be 
undertaken and carried out successfully within a realistic timeframe such that it would benefit the 
United States on a national scale. These considerations are essential to an assessment of the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact, and they do not reflect an endeavor that, more likely than 
not, would materialize on the expansive level envisioned by the Petitioner. 
In addition, the Petitioner's broad claim that her "work will contribute to advancements in the field" 
is not corroborated by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely her project would 
have a positive prospective impact within the healthcare industry. Further, the Petitioner has not 
provided independent evidence or otherwise explained how her project would have a prospective 
national impact on an economy of any scale. A petitioner must support assertions with relevant, 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)( l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-paii-f-chapter-5. 
4 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. She has not shown that her project 
stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular locality or to the United States overall. 
As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the prospective benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar 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). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she has not 
established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5