remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Research

U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2024 
In Re: 33944442 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a biomedical researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional as well as a national interest waiver of 
the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we wi 11 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
1and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. 
Id. 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for classification as an advanced degree 
professional, that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and that the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance or that waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to undertake and its ''potential prospective impact." Id. 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. Id. The term ''endeavor" is more 
specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation 
normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that 
occupation. For example, while engineering is an occupation, the explanation of the proposed 
endeavor should describe the specific projects and goals, or the areas of engineering in which the 
person will work, rather than simply listing the duties and responsibilities of an engineer. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is adoctoral research fellow at the _____ studying 
biomedical sciences and microbiology and conducting biomedical research in support of eventual 
advances in the treatment and prevention of Type 1 diabetes. The Petitioner asserts that her proposed 
endeavor is to investigate the roles that environmental and genetic factors play on the development of 
Type 1 Diabetes in order to gain insight into the initiating processes of Type 1 Diabetes and the 
modifying factors involved which can lead to the development of new therapeutics to treat the disease. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance because 
the record did not show the prospective impact of her research beyond her university. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she provided a comprehensive description of her proposed 
endeavor, namely scientific research which has the potential to have broad implications in the field of 
diabetes and personalized medicine. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has established the national importance of her endeavor under the analytical framework set forth in 
Dhanasar. 
In her submission, the petitioner states that she plans to "conduct a comprehensive study that 
investigates the intricate relationship between environmental and genetic factors in Type 1 Diabetes." 
She further describes her research as follows: 
By analyzing a diverse population of individuals with TIO and comparing them to healthy 
controls, we can pinpoint specific environmental exposures and genetic variations that 
contribute to the disease's development. Through advanced genomic techniques, such as 
2 
whole-genome sequencing and gene expression profiling, we can identify genetic risk variants 
and how they interact with environmental triggers. By combining epidemiological data with 
cutting-edge genetic analyses, we can uncover new insights into the mechanisms underlying 
TIO pathogenesis. Ultimately, this research can pave the way for personalized preventive 
strategies and more targeted treatments for individuals at high risk of developing TIO. By 
understanding the intricate interplay between environmental and genetic factors, we can work 
towards improving the lives of those affected by this challenging condition. 
She also highlights that her endeavor aligns with several government initiatives and policies, including 
the National Institutes of Health's {NIH) allocation of substantial funding to biomedical research, 
including studies dedicated to Type 1 Diabetes; the establishment of the National Institute of Diabetes 
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases by the NIH, a dedicated institute to address diabetes and its 
profound implications for public health; and government participation in public-private partnerships 
focused on Type 1 Diabetes, such as the Diabetes Association and Beyond Tl D. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's submission, we find that the Petitioner has established that her 
endeavor - research aimed at developing new treatments for diabetes which utilizes critical and 
emerging biotechnologies - is the subject of national priorities and has a potential for positive 
prospective impact, national or global implications to the field, and therefore, rises to a level of 
national importance. 
B. Whether the Petitioner Is Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
Although the Director concluded that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor, in addressing this prong of the framework under Matter of Dhanasar, the Director's decision 
lists the potential factors to be considered but does not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence or 
explain why the evidence was sufficient to establish eligibility under this prong. Specifically, the 
Director provided a summary of the criteria required to meet the second prong of the framework under 
Matter of Dhanasar, then provided a brief description of the Petitioner's doctoral research as well as a 
list of the evidence submited by the Petitioner. The Director immediately followed this with aconclusion, 
"[u]pon further consideration, of the evidence in the record and the evidence received in the RFE, the 
petitioner has submitted sufficient documentation, that she is well positioned to continue her research as 
indicated in her proposed endeavor. As such, the petitioner has established she is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor." Here, the Director did not adequately explain how the evidence in the 
record led to the determination that the Petitioner established that she is well-positioned to advance her 
proposed endeavor. However, the Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for the decision.2 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
2 We note here that while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research 
during her graduate studies, the evidence submitted does not appear to demonstrate that this work renders her well 
positioned to advance her proposed research. We recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge 
in some way in order to be accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit; however, not every 
individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, the individual's 
progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in similar efforts, or generation of interest 
among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. For instance, does the record demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
3 
C. Whether, on Balance, Waiving the Job Offer Requirement Would Benefit the United States 
As to the third prong of Dhanasar, the Director concluded that "the record does not demonstrate the 
widespread benefits associated with the beneficiary's endeavor as agraduate assistant. The evidence fails 
to detail how the petitioner's proposed endeavor would achieve economic benefit to the Unted States." 
However, the Director did not discuss the evidence that was considered in balancing these considerations 
nor address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong. In addition, "[e]vidence that the endeavor 
has the potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable but is not required, as an 
endeavor's merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact. For example, 
endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, 
whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits 
for the United States." Matter of Dhanasar at 889. 
111. CONCLUSION 
We will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration. On remand, 
the Director should review and fully analyze the entire record in considering whether the Petitioner 
has established eligibility under the second and third prong of the Dhanasar framework. If 
appropriate, on remand the Director may issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny. 
The Director must then issue a new decision, addressing all the relevant evidence to decide the merits 
of the Petitioner's claim of eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
published and presented work has served as an impetus for progress in diabetes prevention/treatment or that it has generated 
substantial positive discourse in the diabetes research community or constitute a record of success or progress in advancing 
research relating to diabetes treatment. Additionally, while acknowledging that the Petitioner may have conducted 
research in the past, and has three citations over four papers, the sole paper that relates to diabetes has no citations which 
indicates that the Petitioner's work has not garnered the interest of others. Further, while the record indicates that the 
Petitioner works on funded projects, she does not offer evidence showing that she has been the recipient of any scientific 
research grants. In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner "initiated" or was "the primary award contact on 
several funded grant proposals" and that he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." Id. at 893. 
4