dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmaceuticals And Diagnostic Laboratories

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2024 In Re: 28962875 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur with asserted expertise in pharmaceuticals and the management of 
diagnostic laboratories, 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 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 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. 
"Advanced degree" is defined, in pertinent part, as 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
"Profession" is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation. 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." 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 
petitions. Dhanasar states that 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. 2 
II. ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
Neither the notification of intent to deny issued by the Director nor the subsequent denial notice 
provided a determination of whether the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to show that he is a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, we will reserve the issue of 
whether he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. 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). 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The 
Petitioner intends to own and operate a clinical analysis laboratory in the~I--~I Florida region. 
The Petitioner's business plan describes his endeavor as follows: 
Committed to providing the best health care for Americans, [the Company] will 
compete in the general clinical analysis laboratory industry in Florida but will stand out 
by offering a higher service quality at an affordable price for its clients .... 
. . . The Company will be a low-cost medical clinic for its patients so that they have 
access to a range of clinical exams, and afterward, to medical specialties. Despite the 
low cost, the service provided will be of the best quality, being a true solution to the 
problem that many have to deal with today: the lack of medical care for not having 
[favorable] financial conditions. It is worth mentioning that the laboratory will farther 
evolve into a complete health clinic, where patients will have the comfort of running 
their exams and consultations in the same place. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons discussed below, 
we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of his endeavor to establish his 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of documents currently present in the record, including a 
study of health screenings and the prevention of chronic disease progression. The record also includes 
reports and articles discussing such issues as the importance of diagnostics in health outcomes, the 
rising costs of healthcare, the significance of healthcare access to economic growth, and high vacancy 
rates for medical professionals. On appeal, in response to the Director's conclusion that the potential 
impact of his endeavor will be limited to serving the clientele of his own company and will not impact 
the field or industry more broadly, the Petitioner contends the following: 
Access to diagnostic services, especially at fair prices to those who cannot afford a 
private health care insurance and have limited access to health care services allows for 
early diagnosis, prevention, and customized treatment for millions of patients in the 
United States. Early identification, prevention, and diagnosis of diseases and their risk 
factors improve patient outcomes and quality of life while also saving money for the 
healthcare system .... [The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor impacts more [than] solely 
his enterprise and clients, his proposed endeavor. .. will broadly enhance societal 
welfare by providing individuals with an affordable health care service that will allow 
the early detection of diseases that can severely impact the labor force productivity. 
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 the Petitioner's 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. 
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. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to open a diagnostic laboratory offering affordable prices 
to patients in thd Iregion using a business model that he developed in Brazil, he has not offered 
3 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Petitioner references his successful business 
experience in Brazil as a model upon which he will develop his company in the United States. The 
record, however, does not include evidence of that business model or how it will be used to support 
the Petitioner's intention to grow the business to include additional clinical care services and to expand 
the business from Florida to other states. Id at 893. Here, we conclude that the record does not show 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and 
patients to impact the healthcare industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Though 
he has submitted a business plan discussing his plans to create and operate a low-cost medical clinic 
and laboratory, without more, the business plan does not sufficiently demonstrate that any benefits to 
the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For instance, the business plan offers a financial forecast which predicts revenues of $875,000 by the 
third year of his company's operation. This and other projections in the business plan, however, are 
not accompanied by an explanation of the origins of the figures used in their calculation. In addition, 
while the Petitioner states his intention of investing $176,989 to fund the first month of the company's 
operation, the record does not include evidence to demonstrate that these funds are available or how 
the business will be funded thereafter beyond investing anticipated revenues into the business. The 
Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence, but he has not 
adequately done so here. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376. 
Further, although the Petitioner states that the company will have twenty-two employees (including 
himself as the general manager) by its third year of operation, he has not provided evidence to show 
that he would employ a significant population of workers in the region, or that his endeavor would 
offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business 
activity, or tax revenue. While the Petitioner has provided data demonstrating economic hardship in 
the region in which he intends to operate his business, it is not clear how an individual business of the 
size and scope described will impact that economic situation in a way that would positively affect the 
region. The Petitioner also cites a shortage oflaboratory professionals in the United States as a reason 
for the positive impact of his endeavor because he will employ lab professionals; however, it is not 
clear how the employment of a few individuals in an occupation in which there is a general national 
shortage would render the proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner further cites research concerning the impact of healthcare costs on the economy and 
how affordable preventative care promotes a productive workforce. Although this may be an issue of 
significance in the economy generally, the issue is not relevant to whether the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor to own and operate a clinical laboratory rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive 
4 
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); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516. 
III. 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, he has not 
established that he 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