dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2024 In Re: 31074288 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pharmacist, 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, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, he 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 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
• 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, and the record supports that determination. 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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets 
any of the three Dhanasar prongs. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence was sufficient 
to demonstrate that he meets all three prongs under the Dhanasar framework and otherwise warrants 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
In a letter of support, counsel for the Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner, a pharmaceutical chemist 
specializing in the manufacture of medicines at an industrial level, is a highly skilled professional by 
virtue of his academic qualifications in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) 
field. Counsel further asserted that the Petitioner "is qualified to act as a Stem Professional within the 
U.S. pharmaceutical and health sector, either as a consultant, or a researcher." 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of his academic credentials, letters of support and 
recommendation, and industry articles and reports in support of the petition. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the initial filing was not accompanied 
by a statement from the Petitioner or other documentation that articulated the nature of his proposed 
endeavor and therefore the record was insufficient to demonstrate that the endeavor had substantial 
merit or national importance. As a result, the Director requested a detailed description of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor in order to evaluate his request for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a professional plan stating that he had almost 22 years of 
experience in the pharmaceutical industry. Regarding his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated 
that he intends to work as a pharmaceutical consultant, noting that he will "launch a pharmaceutical 
consulting firm that caters to medium and large firms in the industry." Specifically, the professional 
plan stated as follows: 
In the short term, [ the Petitioner] intends to validate his professional title in the United 
States, work in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to learn its systems and acquire new 
2 
tools, and form research teams to develop master formulations or individualized 
medicines for chronic and neglected diseases, with a focus on low-income communities 
in collaboration with health professionals. 
[The Petitioner's] long-term goals for the venture include establishing a consulting firm 
that offers comprehensive services in the pharmaceutical industry, including research, 
production, quality management systems, product quality control, regulatory 
procedures, and innovative training methodologies for health personnel. The company 
would assist clients in preparing for inspections relating to Good Manufacturing 
Practices (GMP), Good Laboratory Practices, and Good Storage and Distribution 
Practices, affecting the whole pharmaceutical industry. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter and additional testimonial letters and 
industry articles in support of his eligibility for a waiver of the job offer. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to establish the proposed endeavor's national 
importance. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor had 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would offer substantial positive economic effects for the 
United States, or that the benefits to the national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor would 
reach a level contemplated by the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief 
emphasizing his qualifications and asserting that the evidence of record establishes the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation explaining 
how the proposed endeavor is of national importance. While the Petitioner's statements and evidence 
reflect his intention to work in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and ultimately establish his own 
pharmaceutical consulting company, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his 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. See id. at 
893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond his employers and clients to impact the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. economy 
more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
3 
We note the Petitioner's submission of articles, reports, and information pertaining to the U.S. 
pharmaceutical industry and the shortage of pharmaceutical workers.2 In determining national 
importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession 
in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his 
specific, proposed endeavor of providing pharmaceutical consulting services rather than the importance 
of the pharmaceutical industry. While we note that the findings in the publications support the 
Director's determination that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, they do not establish that 
the endeavor has national importance. 
Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to his education, skills, knowledge, and record of success 
in his field. The Petitioner also provided several letters of support that discuss his experience in the 
field of pharmacy. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field, however, relate to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." See id at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under the second consideration of Dhanasar's first prong. 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. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of su ort that speak to his character and his talents in the field. 3 For 
exam le a letter from pharmacist and professor of pharmacy at the I 
speaks constructively of his work supervising students, advising 
professionals, and implementing new manufacturing techniques during his time as a student at the 
university. A letter from a quality control specialist and former 
coworker, speaks of the Petitioner's professional competence as a pharmaceutical chemist and 
recommends him for the requested classification. A letter froml Igeneral manager of 
______ favorably recounts the Petitioner's professionalism during his employment with 
her company in 2016. I I an ophthalmologist and surgeon, speaks highly of the 
Petitioner's abilities in medicine development, and recalls how the Petitioner assisted him "in 
providing solutions to special medical prescriptions that are not available under traditional 
pharmaceutical forms." 
Although the writers praise the Petitioner's achievements and abilities as a pharmacist, none of the 
authors discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Instead, the authors primarily focus on 
the Petitioner's character, skills, and past professional accomplishments. Neither the letters nor any 
other evidence within the record provide insight into how the Petitioner's endeavor to provide 
pharmaceutical consulting services will positively impact the region or the industry beyond his 
employers or clients. Again, 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. 
2 It is important to note that the shortage of pharmacists and pharmaceutical workers in the United States does not render 
the Petitioner's potential employment nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortage of 
qualified workers is directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) through the labor certification process. 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
I 
The Petitioner also provided an expert opinion letter from an assistant professor of medical education 
at I Iwho opines that the Petitioner meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
framework. The professor discusses aspects of the Petitioner's occupation and provides this 
generalized information about his endeavor: 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor of providing his expert knowledge and skills in 
the pharmaceutical industry to clients in the U.S. has both substantial merit and national 
importance in the healthcare industry. Generally, pharmacists prepare medications by 
reviewing and interpreting physician orders and detecting therapeutic incompatibilities. 
The analysis in the professor's letter is not specific to the Petitioner's actual endeavor. Instead, he 
states that the Petitioner qualifies for Dhanasar 's first prong because "[ t ]he United States would 
greatly benefit from the expertise and skills of an experienced pharmaceutical consultant such as [the 
Petitioner], who has extensive knowledge and expertise in the healthcare sector." As a matter of 
discretion, we may use expert opinion letters submitted by a petitioner as advisory testimony. 
However, users is responsible for making the final determination regarding eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Where an opinion letter is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, 
we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). Here, the analysis offered in the professor's letter is largely 
limited to general observations about the Petitioner's qualifications and the occupation and industry 
in which he will work and does not offer an analytical roadmap that lays out the basis for the opinion 
that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar 's first prong. We conclude the opinion letter provided lends little 
probative value to the matter here. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner's professional plan includes an overview of the pharmaceutical industry and indicates 
that after validating his professional title and gaining experience as a pharmacist in the United States, 
he intends to open his own pharmaceutical consulting firm. The professional plan, however, is devoid 
of a timeline for opening his company and does not document how his proposed activities would 
constitute an advancement for the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, while the plan contains a 
general proposal for his future work in the field of pharmaceutical consulting and claims that the 
endeavor "more likely than not" will create job opportunities in the field, it does not demonstrate that 
his proposed endeavor's future staffing and business activity stands to provide substantial economic 
benefits to South Florida or the United States. Further, it does not demonstrate that benefits to the 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that he would employ a significant 
population of workers or that his endeavor would offer the specific region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Without relevant, 
probative, and credible documentation of the specific impact the endeavor proposes to have on its 
field, we cannot find that this impact will be nationally important. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375-76. 
We note the Petitioner's reference to our non-precedent decision concerning a national interest waiver 
for a self-employed individual intending to open a consulting firm. This decision was not published 
as a precedent and therefore does not bind users officers in future adjudications. See 8 e.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
5 
individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the 
issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided evidence 
to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. 
We recognize the value of pharmaceutical consulting; however, merely working in an important field 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. We conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his 
employers or clientele to impact the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance, as his evidence and statements are not sufficient to 
demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide his claimed economic and medical benefits to the 
United States. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his 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 his eligibility under 
the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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 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. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6