dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2023 In Re: 28623410 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pharmacist, 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 immigrant classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national 
interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, where we found that the Petitioner qualifies for the 
classification as an advanced degree professional. 1. We also withdrew the Director's finding that the 
proposed endeavor lacks substantial merit and concluded that the Petitioner established that her 
endeavor meets this requirement. However, we determined that she had not overcome the Director's 
adverse conclusion regarding her eligibility for a national interest waiver. In making this 
determination, we applied the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar for adjudicating 
national interest waiver petitions. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). Namely, 
we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor has national importance under the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 2 The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
1 We noted that the Director did not address the threshold question of the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
immigrant classification and determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the classification as an advanced degree 
professional based upon her Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University! ~exas. 
2 However, we declined to reach a determination as to whether the Petitioner meets the remainder of the second and third 
prongs under the Dhanasar framework, citing the national importance standard of the first prong as being dispositive of 
the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when 
another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
As noted in our prior decision, evidence of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner would 
pursueincluded two pharmacy job offer letters offering her part-time employment as a pha
1
acy I 
consultant. In response to the Director's RFE, she also submitted evidence regarding her project' 
I I' a proposed telepharmacy consulting service. In our prior decision, we pointed 
to various evidentiary deficiencies as the basis for concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
her endeavor has national importance. Although we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of 
studies and articles discussing the impact of telepharmacy on health and the economy, we determined 
that the studies and articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor specifically. We also 
addressed an impact analysis report about the Petitioner's'.__ ________ _. project and found 
that the report did not adequately explain the basis for the anticipated revenue figures it contained nor 
establish that the project's potential economic impact would rise to the level of a "substantial positive 
economic effect" that would be commensurate with national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. Next, we recognized the Petitioner's submission of support letters praising her work, but 
we pointed out that the letters did not discuss the Petitioner's '.__________ __. project or 
offer a persuasive explanation for how the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications 
within the telepharmacy field. Ultimately, we determined that the record lacks evidence corroborating 
the claims made in the letters and does not establish that the Petitioner has a specific telepharmacy 
innovation or method that she has researched, developed, and can implement on a broad scale that 
would be commensurate with national importance. In sum, we discussed the Petitioner's supporting 
evidence and explained how the evidence falls short of meeting the national importance requirement 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
On motion, the Petitioner makes vague claims about the propriety of our decision, asserting that it is 
"volatile"; she contends that "the documentation of record demonstrates beyond preponderance the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor" and that a conclusion to the contrary "is an abuse of 
discretion and unwarranted by the facts at bar." The Petitioner also reiterates portions of the USCIS 
Policy Manual and our decision in Matter of Dhanasar where the issue of national importance is 
addressed, arguing that the proposed endeavor has already been shown to have "realized and 
prospective impact which enables and strengthens the national agenda." In essence, the Petitioner 
disagrees with our discretionary determination and asks that we perform "a plenary review of the 
documentation of record," even though we conducted a de novo review during the appeal process. 
The record here shows that we adequately considered the evidence and subsequently incorporated our 
findings in a comprehensive analysis where we explained the deficiencies that led to our conclusion 
that the Petitioner did not establish that her endeavor satisfied the national importance prong under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner also asserts that we misconstrued the proposed endeavor, highlighting that the endeavor 
"seeks to provide necessary medicine and related education to underserved communities through 
telehealth innovations such as direct to consumer telepharmacy consulting work." The Petitioner did 
2 
not establish that this iteration of the endeavor is materially different from our description of the 
endeavor as stated in the prior decision. In our prior decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's intent 
to work as a pharmacist providing "telepharmacy and medication delivery innovations" and also 
reiterated the Petitioner's definition of telepharmacy as a subspecialty of telemedicine that uses 
"telecommunications in delivering pharmaceutical services to patients living far from traditional 
services." The Petitioner has not established that we erroneously misconstrued the proposed endeavor 
or that the unsubstantiated error resulted in our unfavorable decision. Our decision noted that the 
evidence was not sufficient regarding a telepharmacy innovation or method that the Petitioner has 
researched, developed, and now proposes to implement on a broad scale. The record farther shows 
that while we readily recognized the merit of the Petitioner's endeavor and the potential myriad 
benefits of increased access to telepharmacy, we concluded that the endeavor as described by the 
Petitioner in the record was not shown to have health-related impacts rising to the level of national 
importance. 3 In other words, we did not dismiss the appeal because we misconstrued the endeavor, 
or did not consider it significant, but rather because we determined that the breadth of the endeavor's 
impact as proposed and evidenced in the record was not shown as rising to the level of a "substantial 
positive economic effect" that would be commensurate with national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 369. 
The Petitioner goes on to argue that we "fail[ ed] to address the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor" and placed undue emphasis on the Petitioner's resume. Based on a review of the decision, 
we disagree with this assertion. Our prior decision does not mention the Petitioner's resume. 
Although we mentioned support letters that lauded the Petitioner's pharmaceutical knowledge and 
experience and described her past research projects, we explained that evidence of the Petitioner's 
knowledge and skills is more relevant to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the [ noncitizen ]" and whether she is well-positioned to 
advance it. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. We clarified that the endeavor itself is the 
focus of the national importance element in the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. We then 
offered a detailed discussion explaining how the support letters were deficient in specifically 
addressing national importance. A review of our prior decision shows, the primary portion of our 
decision was devoted to discussing documents that the Petitioner submitted and explaining how those 
documents are insufficient in establishing that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
In sum, we reiterated the relevant facts and evidence in the record and provided a comprehensive 
analysis where we applied the law and USCIS policy and explained how we arrived at the adverse 
conclusion. While we recognize the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, given the deficiencies 
described above, the Petitioner has not established that our decision dismissing the appeal was based 
on an incorrect application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our prior. Because the Petitioner has 
not met these requirements of a motion to reconsider, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 We noted, in part, that the impact report "does not estimate an anticipated number of patients that may be reached, 
telepharmacy services that may be implemented, pharmacists that may be trained, nor otherwise quantify the potential 
health-related impacts of the project. As such, we are not able to evaluate whether the health-related impacts of the project 
may rise to the level of national importance." 
3