dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmaceutical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 10, 2024 In Re: 31124997 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as 
an individual of exceptional ability. 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. 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. 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
that (1) the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the 
noncitizen 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 the 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, in light of the nature of the 
noncitizen's qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen 
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 noncitizen's 
contributions; and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent 
to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks to provide professional advice to pharmaceutical and healthcare product 
companies through an independent consultancy. The Director concluded 
that the Petitioner qualifies 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Accordingly, 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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of 
her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The Director 
determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor is of national 
importance, that she is well-positioned to advance it, and that, on balance, it would benefit the United 
States to waive the job offer requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision 
contains "instances of a misunderstanding and misapplication of law that go beyond harmless error 
and reach the levels of abuse of discretion." The Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked the 
submitted evidence and omitted discussing documents submitted with the petition and in response to 
the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Petitioner further argues that the Director failed to 
review the totality of the evidence and implement the appropriate standard of review. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor the noncitizen 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. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to create a consulting service company 
that conducts scientific research on dietary supplements, develops and validates analytical methods to 
meet Food and Drug Administration standards, and trains professionals to improve and analyze 
supplements for better health outcomes globally. She states that her work will primarily focus on 
researching, developing, and manufacturing nutritional and dietary supplements. Additionally, the 
Petitioner seeks to advise companies and conduct educational activities for students and healthcare 
professionals. 
The Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because she aims to 
enhance the quality and efficacy of U.S. nutrition by identifying crucial process improvements and 
implementing risk prevention and mitigation plans. The record includes personal statement, 
recommendation letters, letters expressing interest in working with the Petitioner, as well as industry 
reports and articles related to the field of dietary supplements. The Petitioner argues that the petition 
and the response to the RFE contained sufficient evidence to demonstrate her proposed endeavor's 
national importance. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. While 
the Petitioner claims her proposed endeavor is of national importance, the Petitioner has not offered 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor offers broader implications in her 
field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive economic effects for the country 
that rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor holds national importance because she aims to 
improve the health of the U.S. population by researching and enhancing the efficacy of dietary and 
3 
nutritional supplements to prevent diseases and diet-related disorders. Though we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's assertions and the submitted evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her 
proposed endeavor's benefits stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients and the companies she 
elects to work with to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself: not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her specific endeavor stands to provide 
substantial economic benefits in the United States. While the Petitioner claims that her efforts will 
yield broad and significant economic and educational benefits, the record does not support the 
Petitioner's general assertions with corroborating evidence demonstrating the plausibility of those 
assertions. The Petitioner contends that seeking employment as a consultant will further the impact of 
her proposed endeavor, however the Petitioner has not established her endeavor will have broader 
implications as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her undertaking has implications beyond the 
companies and individuals she elects to work with to impact the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising 
to the level of national importance. Nor has the Petitioner shown that her proposed endeavor has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the country. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to 
the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because it aligns with 
government-supported policies and initiatives. She also contends her proposed endeavor is in line 
with government policies aimed at providing studies and outreach to ensure consumers have the 
accurate information needed to make informed decisions about their products. As previously 
mentioned, 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." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how she will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect 
jobs to move the U.S. economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without 
evidence projecting U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, it is insufficient to assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting 
from the proposed endeavor would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner highlights her education and extensive experience in research, drug formulation, and 
dietary supplements and explains that she plans to leverage her experience to advance her proposed 
endeavor. Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are 
material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's educational 
background and professional experience are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an 
individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first 
4 
Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
The Petitioner argues that "it is not inherently necessary to meet each of the possible evidentiary 
examples provided in Dhanasar in order to prove that a proposed endeavor is of national importance." 
We disagree. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential prospective impact of her specific 
endeavor in that area of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national 
importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The 
Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 ofL-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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
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. 
5