dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 4, 2023 In Re: 29224311 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, describing herself as a business development professional and entrepreneur, seeks 
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. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further determined that she did not demonstrate her 
eligibility 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 Christa'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." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 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: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mongolia, stated in support of the petition that she planned on 
acting as a marketing manager and entrepreneur, working to establish her proposed company D­
Corporate, an "affordable pharmacy store" based in Virginia. The Petitioner explained her proposed 
company as follows: 
D- Corporate will specialize in providing prescription-based compounding medications 
at low and average costs to people who are sick, old, and belong to economically 
weaker communities who pay for their prescription medicines on their own. In 
addition, the pharmacy will offer herbal health supplements, pharmaceutical-grade 
vitamins, homeopathic medicine, and OTC products. 
The Petitioner asserted the business would establish its headquarters, or its first pharmacy, in a 
qualified HUBZone, stating that this would stimulate the region's economic growth, generate jobs, 
and lead to the payment of federal taxes. The Petitioner also indicated in her business plan that she 
planned to open two additional pharmacies in.__ ___________ __, MD after the opening 
of the first store. The Petitioner asserted that the three compounding pharmacies would generate 
revenue over $2.7 million and employ approximately 17 foll-time, 16 part-time, and 10 contractors by 
the end of its fifth year of operation. The Petitioner emphasized that entrepreneurship was good for 
the U.S. economy and that small businesses are healthy for the nation, reducing "dependence on 
obsolete systems and technologies ... where new and improved products support the development of 
new markets." Further, the Petitioner stated that her efforts would "contribute to innovative new 
business practices and economic prosperity; it will also generate American jobs, increase national and 
international integration and productivity, and enhance revenues for the U.S. economy." 
The Petitioner also provided several support letters from colleagues attesting to her expertise and skills 
as a professional pharmacist and businesswoman. For instance, one letter from a director of a 
pharmaceutical company in Mongolia emphasized the Petitioner's "distinguished achievements" as a 
"strong indication that she will serve the U.S. national interest" and be an "exemplary person who will 
make considerable contributions to the U.S." The Petitioner likewise submitted an expert opinion 
from an Associate Professor of Pharmacy,! I from the University ofl 
stating that the Petitioner's company will "open a chain of stores that provide cheaper costing 
medication of high quality to help reduce prices for United States citizens." 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) concluding the Petitioner had established that 
her proposed endeavor had substantial merit. However, the Director indicated the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national importance. The Director 
emphasized the submitted support letters addressing the Petitioner's career accomplishments, which 
but did not highlight the national importance of the endeavor. The Director also discussed articles and 
industry reports submitted by the Petitioner and stated that these only provided generalized 
2 
I 
information about business and entrepreneurship and did not address how the Petitioner's endeavor 
would have substantial positive economic effects rising to the level of national importance. In 
addition, the Director noted the Petitioner's provided business plan, indicating that there was little data 
to support of her income and employment projections. As such, the Director requested that the 
Petitioner submit additional evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact, such as 
documentation to substantiate how it would have national or global implications in the field, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial economic effects, broadly 
enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or impact a matter that a government entity 
has described as having national importance. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the United States stands to "benefit from [the Petitioner's] 
significant science and medical knowledge, particularly as she can provide quality advice to U.S. 
health organizations of all sizes and backgrounds." The Petitioner indicated that her proposed 
endeavor was of national importance because her professional activities would "generate substantial 
ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities" in the United States. The Petitioner also 
explained that the Petitioner's "direct knowledge of the medicine industry will benefit ... U.S. 
companies and individuals that need qualified professionals" and emphasized the impact immigrant 
entrepreneurs have on the U.S. economy. In addition, the Petitioner stated that she "is able to advise 
organizations about potential opportunities for business development and sales expansion in the 
medical field, as well as effective strategies and initiatives." 
The Petitioner further pointed to her proposed plans to start "affordable pharmacy stores" in the United 
States in historically underutilized business zones, indicating that the new business would generate 
jobs and revenue in the U.S., including "about forty-three (43) part-times and full-time jobs" and 
"approximately 8.9 million dollars" in the first five years of operation. The Petitioner stated that her 
ventures would "spur significant foreign direct investment (FDI) opportunities for the country, further 
contributing to the nation's economy and offering economic relief after the financial strains left by 
COVID-19." The Petitioner also submitted several articles discussing the impact of immigrant and 
woman entrepreneurs, as well as entrepreneurs generally, on the U.S. economy, and other articles 
discussing the shortage of pharmacists in the United States. 
As discussed, the Director concluded the Petitioner established that her proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit and further determined that she was well positioned to advance endeavor. However, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. The Director pointed to data submitted from the Petitioner reflecting that the compounding 
pharmacy industry generated $9.3 billion in revenue in 2020, and therefore, that her financial and 
employment projections did not reflect a significant potential to broadly impact this industry and reach 
the level of substantial economic effect. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that her professional activities have national importance 
"because they generate substantial ripple effects upon key health activities" in the United States, 
contributing to "a revenue-enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, productivity centered­
economy." The Petitioner emphasizes her 17 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and 
as an entrepreneur, indicating that her professional record "offers broad implications to the United 
States' pharmacy industry, specifically through her endeavors within key commercial segments." The 
3 
Petitioner again points to her plans to establish an "affordable pharmacy company" and its previously 
provided financial and employment projections, noting that it would create jobs, economic stability, 
and income for the U.S. economy. The Petitioner asserts that the United States "would benefit from 
investing in well-versed pharmacy professionals such as the [Petitioner], who are knowledgeable 
regarding potentially profitable markets for U.S. organizations in regions that are economically and 
politically strategic, yet extremely complex." 
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 Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 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. 
First, on appeal and throughout the record, the Petitioner emphasizes her skills and experience in the 
pharmaceutical field and as an entrepreneur, for instance, noting that that the United States would 
benefit from investing in "well-versed pharmacy professionals" who are knowledgeable regarding 
potentially profitable markets. However, the Petitioner's experience and knowledge in and of itself is 
not relevant to demonstrating the national importance of her proposed endeavor but is only probative 
to whether she is well positioned to advance the endeavor under the second prong of Dhanasar. 
See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 892-93. As noted, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner was well positioned to advance her endeavor. Therefore, we do not find the Petitioner's 
emphasis on her skills and experience convincing in establishing the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. 
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. However, the 
Petitioner submits conflicting assertions as to her proposed endeavor in the United States. While the 
Petitioner emphasizes an intent to open affordable compounding pharmacy stores, elsewhere she 
appears to indicate an intention to provide general professional services in the medical and 
pharmaceutical field. For instance, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner explained that the 
Petitioner's "direct knowledge of the medicine industry will benefit ... U.S. companies and individuals 
that need qualified professionals" and that she "is able to advise organizations about potential 
opportunities for business development and sales expansion in the medical field, as well as effective 
strategies and initiatives." Similarly, as noted, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal her knowledge 
regarding potentially profitable markets for U.S. organizations. Likewise, the Petitioner submitted 
several support letters that did not mention her intention to establish compounding pharmacies in the 
United States, but which all noted her exemplary qualifications in the field, for example in one case, 
stating that she "would make a wonderful and successful addition to any company." 
Therefore, the Petitioner's assertions throughout the record appear to both indicate an intent to open a 
chain of compounding pharmacies through her own company, and also a proposed endeavor to 
continue her career as a pharmacist with other companies in the United States. These conflicting 
4 
statements leave uncertainty as to the Petitioner's actual proposed endeavor, and in turn, the potential 
prospective impact of her endeavors on a national scale. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies 
and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner also submitted vague business plans that do not sufficiently 
establish its proposed financial and hiring projections. For instance, the basis of the Petitioner's 
proposed business plan was to build "affordable" pharmacies, however, she has provided few details 
on how this would be accomplished. The Petitioner did not specify the prescription drugs she would 
sell in her pharmacies and at what price, only assigning prices to generic product categories, such as 
"prescription-compounded medications-low price ($50)," "prescription-compounded medications­
average price ($100)," "herbal supplements ($30)," amongst others. However, it is not clear whether 
different prescription medications and herbal supplements would vary in price substantially based on 
the specific product. Therefore, the generic prices provided by the Petitioner give little support to its 
projection that she would create three "affordable" compounding pharmacies, and that these stores 
would have a national-level impact on the prices of these products. In addition, the Petitioner provided 
little detail on how she would successfully navigate the extensive state and federal regulations and 
licensing requirements that apply to compounding pharmacies in the United States. In sum, the 
Petitioner provides little support for her financial and employment projections, and even if these plans 
were properly explained, that they would have a national level impact on an industry she indicated 
generated $9.3 billion in revenue in 2020. In fact, the Petitioner does not address this conclusion of 
the Director on appeal. In sum, the Petitioner's business plan does not demonstrate that her proposed 
endeavor would, more likely than not, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other 
substantial positive economic effects. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner farther submitted several others unexplained and unsupported claimed national impacts 
that would result from her proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner discussed how her 
entrepreneurship would stimulate "new markets," do away with "obsolete systems and technologies," 
and lead to "new and improved products" and "new innovative business practices." However, in each 
case, the Petitioner did not explain the new markets her endeavor would generate, systems and 
technologies it would replace, or new products or business practices it would generate. In fact, as we 
have discussed, the Petitioner provided little detail in her business plan as to what products she would 
sell in her proposed compounding pharmacies. Id. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that her proposed endeavor would lead to "economic prosperity," 
"increased international integration and productivity," and have "substantial ripple effects" on the U.S. 
economy. Again, there is little explanation of what international integration and productivity is or 
what ripple effects would result from her proposed endeavor. Further, the Petitioner states that her 
ventures would "spur significant foreign direct investment (FDI) opportunities for the country, farther 
contributing to the nation's economy and offering economic relief after the financial strains left by 
COVID-19." The Petitioner does not explain how her business plan to open three compounding 
pharmacies would spur foreign direct investment or alleviate financial strains from COVID-19 on a 
national level. While many new businesses, entrepreneurs, and immigrants may contribute to the 
economy in some way, it does not follow that all who start new businesses, generate revenue, and 
employ U.S. citizens have a potential prospective impact on a national level. 
5 
The Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospecti ve 
impact of her proposed pharmacie s, professional services, and entrepreneur ship would rise 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 . 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. As noted by the Director , the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her proposed clientele. As such, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would have a broad influence 
commensurate with national importance . 
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 , we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments with respect to the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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 requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she 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