dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 17, 2024 In Re: 30627253 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pharmacist 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. § l 153(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. 
§ l l 53(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 Petitioner 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) (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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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). 
• 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's decision did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Instead, the decision only addressed the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Therefore, the issue for consideration 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the 
substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 2 
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 definitive statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that she intends "to continue 
using [her] expertise and knowledge gained over 20 years as a Pharmacist at hospitals and home care, 
to work as an Entrepreneur in the United States." She further claimed that she will open a business 
specializing in parenteral nutrition products in the State of Florida and serve as its chief executive 
officer. 
The Petitioner also submitted a business plan for her proposed company in which she claimed that the 
company would hire a total of 27 employees, and earn a total revenue of approximately $2.5 million, 
by its fifth year of operations. In addition to her definitive statement and business plan, the Petitioner 
submitted copies of her academic credentials, an expert opinion letter, letters of recommendation, and 
industry articles and reports. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the record as initially constituted was 
insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor had substantial merit or national importance. 
The Director observed that the Petitioner did not provide specific insight as to what she intends to do 
in the United States, and requested a detailed description of the proposed endeavor so that the Director 
could evaluate her request for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
In response, the Petitioner resubmitted her business plan, asserting that her plan sufficiently outlined 
her proposed endeavor, which is "to provide parenteral nutrition products aimed at assisting patients 
unable to receive nutrients in amounts that meet the metabolic needs of the gastrointestinal tract." She 
2 Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand 
the decision for the Director to determine whether she qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. 
2 
also submitted additional industry articles and reports in support of her assertion that her proposed 
endeavor had both substantial merit and national importance. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner provided insufficient descriptions 
and documentary evidence to identify her proposed endeavor with specificity, and therefore had not 
established the proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. The Director 
determined that in addition to providing a vague description of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
had not shown, to the extent it could be understood, that her endeavor had significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers, 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 asserts that USCIS "did not apply the proper standard of proof in this case, 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law to the detriment of the 
Appellant." The Petitioner also asserts, through counsel, that the Director disregarded the evidence 
submitted, and provides a brief emphasizing her qualifications as an entrepreneur in the 
pharmaceutical field and asserting that the evidence of record establishes the substantial merit and 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the 
preponderance standard, USCIS considers not only the quantity, but also the quality (including 
relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 
77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Here, although the Petitioner stated her intent to work as an entrepreneur and provide parenteral 
nutrition products through her proposed company, the Director determined that the description of the 
proposed endeavor was too generalized and requested additional information regarding the nature of 
the endeavor. The information provided by the Petitioner in response to the Director's RFE, however, 
did not clarify or provide more specificity to the initially described proposed endeavor, and the assertions 
on appeal provide no new details. Overall, we have insufficient information concerning the proposed 
endeavor with which to determine whether it has substantial merit because the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has not been clearly defined and described. We therefore agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not submit persuasive evidence to support a finding of substantial 
merit. 3 The Petitioner bears the burden to both affirmatively establish eligibility under the Dhanasar 
framework, of which substantial merit is one piece, and establish her eligibility by a preponderance of the 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
3 We note that the Petitioner erroneously states on appeal that the Director found that the endeavor has substantial merit 
and does not contest the Director's finding to the contrary. Accordingly, we deem this ground to be waived. An issue not 
raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5 (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. at 
658 n.2)). 
3 
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 "[aa ]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 or 
explanation concerning how her proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner's 
business plan explains her intent to start a company specializing in parenteral nutrition products in 
Florida. The business plan states that her new business will benefit the U.S. economy because its 
sustainable and scalable growth will contribute to the strengthening of the American economy and 
generate more direct and indirect jobs for American workers. As previously noted, the business plan 
projects hiring 27 employees and earning revenue of approximately $2.5 million by its fifth year of 
operation. 
The record, however, does not sufficiently detail the basis for the company's financial and staffing 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner also has not 
provided corroborating evidence, aside from claims in her business plan, that her company's future 
staffing levels and business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underutilized 
areas of Florida. As constituted, the record lacks evidence showing that earning revenue of 
approximately $2.5 million and creation of 27 jobs by year five rises to the level of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that she demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor through 
previously submitted documentation of her expertise and experience in recommendation letters from 
colleagues discussing her work experience and expertise in the pharmaceutical field. 4 However, these 
documents relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that 
the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under 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 her work. Id. 
The Petitioner's resume and recommendation letters only address her past accomplishments working 
in the pharmaceutical field and do not address the national importance of her endeavor's "potential 
prospective impact." While we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided valuable services for her 
employers and their clients in the past, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence based on these recommendation letters to demonstrate the prospective impact ofher proposed 
endeavor rising 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. 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
In addition, these letters do not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit 
U.S. business industries and the field of pharmaceutical and nutrition. As contemplated by Dhanasar: 
"[aa ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's 
pharmaceutical skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United 
States. 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert optmon letter from a professor emeritus of health 
administration at ______ The letter significantly focuses on the importance of nutrition 
and nutritionists and their role in the U.S. economy, and also discusses the Petitioner's skills and 
abilities as an entrepreneur in the pharmaceutical industry. While the writer speculates on how the 
Petitioner's provision of nutritional products can potentially have a positive impact on American lives 
and the U.S. economy, she does not offer any persuasive detail concerning the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or how her endeavor's impact would extend beyond clients that she will serve. Nor does the 
record include adequate corroborating evidence to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work 
in the pharmaceutical field offers broader implications in her field or substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. 
Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion 
or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way 
questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, the advisory opinion is of little probative value as it 
does not meaningfully address the details of the proposed endeavor and why it would have national 
importance. 
The Petitioner further claims national importance of her proposed endeavor based on industry reports 
and articles describing the valuable role that entrepreneurs play in the success and viability of 
businesses. The record also includes information on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry as well as the 
importance of pharmacists and immigrant entrepreneurs on the U.S. economy. We recognize the 
importance of the pharmaceutical industry and related careers as well as the positive effects of 
nutritional education. However, merely working in the pharmaceutical field is insufficient to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 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 noted 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. The industry reports and articles 
submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable 
to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor 
extends beyond her future clients and customers to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The economic benefits that 
the Petitioner claimed depend on numerous factors and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct 
evidentiary tie between her provision of nutritional products and the claimed economic results. 
5 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, the substantial merit and 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 the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility 
under Dhanasar's second and third 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 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 she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6