dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25692359 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 14, 2023 
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 . 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. 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 evidence did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, is 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 l&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 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability , the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. While neither 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 a 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 Director did not make a finding in the decision as to the threshold question of the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, however the Director stated in a request 
for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner qualifies for the classification as an advanced degree 
professional. Based upon her Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University of I 
Texas, we agree. The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
The Petitioner intends to work as a pharmacist providing "telepharmacy and medication delivery 
innovations." The Petitioner defines telepharmacy as a subspecialty of telemedicine that uses 
"telecommunications in delivering pharmaceutical services to patients living far from traditional 
services." The Petitioner submitted job offer letters from two pharmacies offering part-time 
employment to the Petitioner as a pharmacy consultant as evidence of the specific endeavor that she 
would pursue. In response to the Director's RFE, she also submitted evidence relating to her project 
________ a proposed telepharmacy consulting service. The Petitioner states that she 
"will continue to take an innovative approach that revolutionizes the pharmaceutical industry while 
amplifying health justice goals." 
The Director found that the Petitioner established her eligibility under the second prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework-that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
However, the Director found that the record did not establish either the substantial merit or the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong, or that, on balance, a waiver of 
the job offer requirement would be in the national interest, as required by the third prong. 
Before we tum to the merits of the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework, we note two general claims the Petitioner raises on appeal. 
First, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not give proper or full consideration to the evidence 
in the record, that the decision "failed to cite to several documents" in the record, and that the specific 
references the Director did make to the evidence were "vague and generic, making it difficult to 
understand why specific pieces of evidence were insufficient .... " The Petitioner asserts that, as a 
result, the denial is not in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i), which requires that when a 
petition is denied, an officer "explain in writing the specific reasons for denial." 
We acknowledge that the Director's decision does not directly discuss every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner submitted and is brief in its analysis of the specific deficiencies in the evidence. However, 
the regulation that the Petitioner cites to does not require that a decision discuss every piece of 
evidence in the record to be sufficient, nor does the Petitioner cite to any other law or policy which 
makes this a requirement. Following review, we conclude that the decision is sufficient and specific 
enough to provide the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and the AAO an opportunity 
2 
for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow 
the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Moreover, we 
note that the remedy that the Petitioner seeks based upon this claimed deficiency is that USCIS 
reconsider the evidence, or in the alternative "the AAO ... apply a de novo review." We have 
conducted a de novo review and considered the evidence in the record in full. While we may not 
discuss each piece of evidence in the record in our decision, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
Second, the Petitioner claims that the Director improperly applied a more stringent standard than the 
preponderance of the evidence in adjudicating the petition. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
3 75-76. The Petitioner asserts that she provided prima facie evidence of her eligibility and that the 
evidence was "voluminous and certainly meets the 'greater than 50 percent probability of something 
occurring"' standard. But the volume of the evidence submitted is not indicative of eligibility; 
eligibility for the benefit sought is not determined by the quantity of evidence alone but also the 
quality. Id. at 376 ( citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). Other than referring 
to the volume of the evidence, the Petitioner does not support this assertion with specificity as to the 
record and how it demonstrates her eligibility under the specific prongs, and her unsupported assertion 
alone does not establish error in the Director's decision nor eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
A. Substantial Merit of the Proposed Endeavor 
We tum now to the Petitioner's specific claims of eligibility under each of the requisite Dhanasar 
prongs, beginning with whether she has established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. 
The Director found the evidence was insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's substantial merit 
because, as he stated, the evidence did not demonstrate that the endeavor has "the potential to create a 
significant economic impact, or that it has the potential to create a significant cultural impact." 
Further, the Director found that, if the endeavor relates to research or the pursuit of knowledge, "the 
record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's work served as an impetus for progress." 
We disagree with the Director's characterization that a petitioner must establish the potential for either 
a significant economic or significant cultural impact to demonstrate the substantial merit of a proposed 
endeavor. These are not the only two areas in which an endeavor may have substantial merit. A 
petitioner may demonstrate their proposed endeavor's substantial merit "in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education." Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor's potential to create significant economic impact may be favorable 
but is not required. Id. Additionally, we disagree that the Petitioner here must show that her research 
has already "served as an impetus for progress" to establish substantial merit. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that she has established the substantial merit of her proposed 
endeavor by providing "detailed evidence illustrating how health disparities represent a significant 
financial burden to the [United States], as well as how pharmacy, telepharmacy, and medication 
delivery innovations play a critical role in mitigating health disparity in the United States .... " The 
Petitioner cites to the studies and reports submitted that document the economic burden of health 
disparities and the benefits that telepharmacy can provide to rural and underserved communities. 
Based upon the Petitioner's persuasive evidence of the potential myriad benefits of increased access 
3 
to telepharmacy, we agree with the Petitioner that she has demonstrated the substantial merit of her 
proposed endeavor. 
We withdraw the Director's finding that the proposed endeavor lacks substantial merit and conclude 
that the Petitioner has established this requirement. 
B. National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
We tum next to whether the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. In making this determination, we consider the proposed endeavor's potential prospective 
impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is regionally 
focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
The Director found the Petitioner did not demonstrate this requirement because she did not show that 
the proposed endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals the [Petitioner] would 
serve, to impact the industry or field more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has provided "extensive evidence of the national importance 
of telepharmacy and medication delivery innovations ... to purposefully improve access to medical 
treatments [for] rural and underserved communities in the United States." She highlights the articles 
and studies submitted that discuss the impact of telepharmacy on health outcomes for those in rural 
and underserved communities and the benefits to the economy of the telepharmacy model. The 
Petitioner asserts that this evidence establishes that, "by ensuring proper pharmaceutical assistance in 
underserved areas, the adoption of telepharmacy can mitigate health disparity" in the United States. 
The evidence is in fact persuasive of the potential health and economic benefits of increased access to 
telepharmacy services. But the studies and articles in the record do not discuss the Petitioner or her 
proposed endeavor specifically. Rather, the evidence relates to the telepharmacy industry overall, not 
to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of starting a consulting business and offering telepharmacy 
consulting services to two pharmacies. The Petitioner must establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor, not the field of "telepharmacy and medication delivery innovations" in general. 
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 "specific endeavor that the 
[noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As such, we 
conclude that the articles and studies in the record do not establish that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that her project has national 
importance, which she claims is established by the impact analysis report that discusses this project. 
The report describes the project as "a program that focuses on providing 
consultative and training services to emerging pharmacies and community organizations interested in 
introducing telepharmacy services and innovative delivery methods to low-income communities with 
limited access to medical services." The report states that the project will use a website and other 
4 
digital tools to do this. The report estimates that the anticipated revenue for this project in its first year 
is $175,040, which appears to be based upon the Petitioner's individual anticipated earnings. The 
report estimates an anticipated revenue of $120,000 to $275,000 per "pharmacy or hospital 
partnership," but the report does not explain the basis for this estimate nor make a projection as to how 
many partnerships the project will have, and in what timeframe. The only two named potential 
partners are the pharmacies from which the Petitioner submitted job offer letters. The report does not 
estimate any other potential economic impacts, such as a potential number of jobs created. We 
conclude that the estimated revenue amounts do not rise to the level of a "substantial positive economic 
effect" that would be commensurate with national importance. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
890. Additionally, the 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 . 
Therefore, we conclude that the impact analysis report does not establish the national importance of 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of offering telepharmacy consulting services to two or more 
pharmacies . 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director improperly dismissed the expert letters in the record 
without full consideration and, further, that these letters establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. Related this claim, the Petitioner also asserts that the letters align with the USCIS 
Policy Manual's guidance relating to evidence that may be used in support of a national interest waiver 
petition, because she has included letters from government agencies and quasi-governmental entities. 2 
We agree that letters of support from interested government agencies and quasi-governmental entities 
that are detailed, persuasive, and credible as to their interest in the proposed endeavor and its potential 
impact are favorable evidence in establishing the national importance of a proposed endeavor. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual, which cites the 
example of federally funded research and development centers as interested government agencies. 
However , the submission of letters from individuals in government or quasi-governmental entities 
does not by itself establish eligibility. We have reviewed each of the Petitioner's letters of support 
and conclude that the letters do not persuasively establish that the Petitioner's endeavor is of national 
importance. 
The record contains several letters of support that describe the Petitioner as effective at providing 
telepharmacy services in the I Texas area, including a letter froml I 
County Public Health Department. Attorney! I states that the Petitioner has done "impactful 
pharmaceutical work with underserved communities" inl I Texas and has trained other 
pharmacists to "harness effective communication and creative service models" to reach vulnerable 
communities. Similarly, _______________ University and the I 
School of Public Health writes that the Petitioner is "uniquely contributing to the advancement of 
health accessibility in the I TX area" and that she is qualified to continue "advancing the 
pharmaceutical industry through innovating new delivery methods and other highly honorable means." 
I !Pharmaceutical states that the Petitioner has "successfully worked 
2 The Petitioner makes other claims on appeal related to how the evidence submitted aligns with the USCIS Policy Manual. 
Primarily, this relates to evidence that may establish that a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
Because the Director found that the Petitioner established this requirement , it is not at issue on appeal, and we need not 
address those arguments here. 
5 
with patients' insurance plan providers to obtain their needed drug therapies within the parameters of 
their insurance plans and develop the most cost-effective, evidence-based therapy plans for patients." 
of the University ofl I College of Pharmacy notes that the 
Petitioner is a "Pharmacist Preceptor certified by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy which positions 
her to assist in the training of future pharmacist[ s]." 
Although these letters describe the Petitioner's work as "disruptive" and "innovative," these assertions 
are not supported by the letter writers themselves, nor are they established by the other evidence in the 
record. For example, the letter writers do not describe nor explain what the Petitioner's "creative 
service model" is or what her innovative "new delivery methods" are, other than using a telepharmacy 
model. Additionally, although one of the letters discusses the Petitioner's preceptorship, the evidence 
in the record does not discuss the extent of the Petitioner's training activities, nor establish the impact 
that those activities would have. 
Several of the support letters describe the Petitioner's past research projects relating to telepharmacy 
care. The support letter from discusses two residency projects by the 
Petitioner, one of which claims "revolutionized" care for patients with heart failure by using 
her drug expertise in a way that "optimized patient care and reduced costs associated with 
hospitalizations .... " The support letter from I !University 
states that through a research project the Petitioner "developed prominent responses to address 
minority healthcare issues using pharmaceuticals and innovative pharmacy service delivery 
advancements." I I also states that one of the Petitioner's research projects, relating to 
telephonic pharmacy consultations, "was excellent and enabled her to increase access leading to better 
patient outcomes." The support letter from l discusses a similar project 
relating to diabetes care. 
Although these letters refer to the Petitioner's past research projects as evidence of the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor, the letters lack sufficient detail related to these research projects. 
For example, the letters do not describe the Petitioner's "innovative pharmacy service delivery 
enhancements," nor do they provide support for the claim that the Petitioner has "revolutionized" heart 
failure care. The letters do not describe, nor does the other evidence in the record establish, a specific 
innovation or method related to telepharmacy that the Petitioner has researched, developed, and now 
proposes to implement on a broad scale that would be commensurate with national importance. 
Additionally, the Petitioner has not submitted other documentation related to these research projects. 
Thus, we are unable to evaluate the weight of these claims. Moreover, the Petitioner's stated endeavor 
is to provide telepharmacy services through her consulting business and part-time work with two 
pharmacies, not to engage in research related to the development of telepharmacy care. 
Primarily, the support letters discuss the Petitioner's pharmaceutical knowledge and past 
achievements. To the extent that the letters discuss the Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and record of 
success, this evidence generally relates 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. The issue here is whether the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor-to be employed as a consultant at two pharmacies and to establish a telepharmacy 
consulting business-has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. But other than stating 
the Petitioner's intent to continue providing telepharmacy services, the letters do not describe the 
6 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in detail. Notably, none of the letter writers discuss the 
Petitioner's project. Moreover, the letters do not provide a persuasive 
explanation for how the Petitioner's work will have national or global implications within the 
telepharmacy field. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
We acknowledge the authors of the recommendation letters are experts in the pharmacy or healthcare 
field, and we have carefully considered each one. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert letters is not presumptive of 
eligibility. Id. Although the recommendation letters carry persuasive weight as to whether the 
Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, for the reasons stated above, we 
conclude that they do not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends on appeal that she has established the national importance of her 
endeavor because the analytical framework in Dhanasar "moved away from the geographic 
importance" of the "national in scope" requirement of the prior framework. Instead, the Petitioner 
claims, USCIS "should evaluate the importance of the problems one tackles which could be important 
on a local level" and then consider the "potential prospective impact of the undertaking if applied 
geographically across the nation." 
We disagree with the Petitioner's characterization of the national importance requirement here. The 
Petitioner is correct that the analytical framework introduced in Dhanasar sought to reduce the focus 
on the geographic impact of an endeavor. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 887. But 
nevertheless, Dhanasar still requires that a proposed endeavor have national importance based on its 
"national or global implications" within a particular field. Id. at 889. Although an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may have national importance, it must still have a broad impact. Id. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that "what [she] does in the _________ ... can easily 
be replicated in other areas of the country," the evidence in the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner has a particular telepharmacy service model or methodology that is replicable and that she 
intends to disseminate through the field on a scale that would be commensurate with national 
importance. Rather, the Petitioner simply describes her plan to continue to provide telepharmacy and 
telepharmacy consulting services. In Dhanasar, we gave as examples of nationally important 
endeavors those that might result in improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. 
Although the Petitioner claims that she will provide "medication delivery innovations," she has not 
offered sufficient information or evidence to establish that her telepharmacy consulting activities have 
the potential to result in the type of broad impact that a medical advancement would. 
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor, and thus she has not established her eligibility under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
7 
C. Whether, on Balance, Waiving the Job Offer Requirement Would Benefit the United States 
As stated above, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the second prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. Therefore, the next issue is whether the Petitioner has established the third prong­
that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890-91. Because the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor meets the 
national importance requirement of the first prong, we need not address whether she has established her 
eligibility under the third Dhanasar prong. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record 
satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 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 alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework 
related to national importance, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she is eligible 
for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8