dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 11 , 2024 In Re: 31839844 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pharmacist and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner merited a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 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." 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; 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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 individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional. The 
remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner intended to develop a business providing wellness products and health consultation 
services in the United States, opening a compounding pharmacy in Florida during its fourth year of 
operation. A professional plan from the Petitioner submitted in response to a request for evidence 
describes her proposed endeavor as follows: 
The company ... will offer wellness products. The company will provide a range of 
high-quality formula-based products in the treatment of health problems . . . . All the 
products have been researched and developed by [the Petitioner], who for over decades 
has been serving and accompanying customers, collecting data, analyzing and 
researching natural products at her company in Brazil. The products marketed by [ the 
company] ... do not require a medical prescription and may, from year 02, be produced 
in quantity, being sold directly through [the company's] sales channels and distributed 
throughout the country. 
The company will also provide online health consulting to customers. This will lead 
to a better understanding of the client's problems and the products are custom 
developed according to their needs and requirements. [The company] would help to 
reduce various health issues related to ... sexual health, weight loss, anxiety & stress 
and their health consequences. [The company's] products and services can benefit the 
physical, sexual and mental health of its responders. Out of the top eight public health 
problems in American, [the company] can help balance five of them that are correlated 
with stress (obesity, cancer, diabetes, alcohol and drug abuse, heart disease), certainly 
reducing hospital and medication expenses. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, she did 
not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor would have national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts her petition "has been denied ... due to errors in the judgement of [her] case" and that the 
decision "shows erroneous conclusion of rule and fact, bringing arguments that [go] against the 
statements within the Matter ofDhanasar." Although she asserts that the Director's arguments were 
"not in accordance with the evidence provided," the Petitioner does not specify how the Director erred 
in the decision. This alone is grounds for dismissal. An appeal must specifically identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(v). Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her endeavor in order to 
establish her eligibility 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 
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. 
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 her work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner first points to her qualifications and experience, highlighting letters from 
former clients and professionals in the pharmaceutical field positively discussing her previous work 
with them. We note that an individual's qualifications and experience generally apply not to the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, but to the second, which discusses whether an individual is well 
positioned to advance a proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends that the letters provide evidence of the positive impact her work would have 
in the United States. She states, "The positive impact of my work, including the economic impact, 
arises naturally as a result of people being able to stay active, healthy, free to work and generate income 
in the country, instead of being in hospitals or at home taking care of their health problems." However, 
the Petitioner does not explain how her previous work's positive influence on several clients in Brazil 
demonstrates the national impact of her proposed endeavor in the United States. The Petitioner also 
states on appeal that she intends to not only work as a pharmacist but as a consultant "helping other 
American companies to grow in the area of preventative and healthcare as well." Apart from these 
vague assertions by the Petitioner, the record does not contain evidence to substantiate that her 
business would grow businesses within the pharmaceutical industry or in any other healthcare field. 
Likewise, the Petitioner does not sufficiently articulate how her proposed endeavor would have a 
prospective national level impact on the health of Americans as claimed. A petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further emphasizes a submitted expert optrnon letter stating that her 
"endeavor can greatly impact the pharmaceutical industry," that "[m Jore than 131 people-66 percent 
of all adults in the United States-use prescription drugs," and that "the U.S. spends over $2 billion 
on drug development each year." These assertions, however, do not clarify how the Petitioner's 
company-competing with thousands of compounding pharmacies in the United States-would 
nationally impact a claimed multi-billion-dollar industry. The expert opinion letter also does not 
address the Petitioner's intention to offer non-prescription wellness products aimed to address a wide 
3 
range of health issues, one of innumerable companies in the United States selling these products. The 
Petitioner implies on appeal that her intention to work in a healthcare field has innate national 
importance. However, 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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner's business plan provides an overview of her plans for her company's operation and 
describes positions she would hire, potential marketing efforts, and profit projections. However, the 
information in the business plan is not supported by objective evidence to demonstrate how her 
company would have a prospective national impact on the field or on an economy of any scale. For 
example, her business plan projects revenues totaling $15,625,640 by the conclusion of its fifth year 
of operation, as well as the creation of 99 full-time employment positions and 569 indirect jobs. 
However, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient objective support for these projections, including 
probative evidence, to demonstrate that it is likely her company would have a positive national 
economic impact or a national prospective impact within the field. Again, a petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established the national importance of her proposed endeavor 
based on its potential job creation or impact on the U.S. economy, nor has she provided adequate 
evidence to show that she would employ a significant population of workers in a particular region. 
The Petitioner has also not shown that her proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population 
substantial economic benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. 
Further, the Petitioner's business plan references growth forecasts related to the compounding 
pharmaceutical industry, but she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor would serve to 
impact the industry or field more broadly, rising to the level of national importance. For instance, the 
Petitioner's business plan asserts that an aging U.S. population will create increased demand for 
various pharmaceutical products. It is not clear how the Petitioner's operation of a single 
compounding pharmacy and business providing health consultation services would address such a 
nationwide demand. And although the Petitioner's professional plan discusses broad national issues 
related to drng manufacturing in the United States, it does not describe how her individual company 
would affect the industry in a manner that would alleviate or otherwise impact sweeping nationwide 
matters. Finally, while the Petitioner explains on appeal that her endeavor would "generate more than 
enough revenue and impact on the country to be considered as of national importance" ( quoted as 
written), this reasoning is speculative and not based on any objective evidence related to her proposed 
endeavor, the outcomes of which she has not specifically defined. As such, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated that any prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting 
from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive 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) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
4 
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. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5