remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 7, 2023 In Re: 26180669 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a medical scientist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, determining the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts 
in support of a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 1 
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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 The Petitioner simultaneously filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider , which the Director 
subsequently dismissed . 
2 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) . 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." Regarding revocation on 
notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In support of his proposed endeavor for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner initially submitted a 
"Personal Statement" indicating: 
I plan to research and develop high quality products through education and 
advertisement of the importance of diets to American consumers, based on my 
abundant medical ( clinical) experience and knowledge in Korea. In addition, I will 
focus on the development of safe medical devices to ensure that there will be no side 
effects of pain. My efforts will contribute greatly to American society, as well as to 
the health and well-being of the American people. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a business plan for I I in order to "plan to farther [his] 
professional activities in the form of business establishment and continuance thereof in the United 
States." Regarding his claims of meeting the three-prong Dhanasar analytical framework for national 
interest waivers, the Petitioner submitted evidence, such as recommendation letters, employment 
documentation, professional training, published articles, awards, memberships, media coverage, and 
professional licenses. Ultimately, the Director approved the petition, and the Petitioner appeared at 
the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea for an immigrant visa interview. Based on the interview 
responses and derogatory information, the Embassy returned the petition to the Director and 
recommended revocation. The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) and informed the 
Petitioner of the following: 
2 
[I]t appears that the Petitioner misrepresented his role in research and his letters of 
recommendation, which is material to whether the [the Petitioner] is eligible for the 
requested benefit. In the petition was an assertion that [the Petitioner] was hi hl 
involved in the research that was ublished an article called ' 
' on British 
Medical Journal. An online search of the article shows three authors: .______ _. 
The article did not include [the Petitioner] as an~-------------~ author or any evidence showing he was included in the research. [The Petitioner] 
admitted he did not receive any credit for the research, because he was not directly 
involved in the paper. It appears that [the Petitioner] exaggerated his research 
experience and material submission, in addition to submitting questionable letters of 
recommendation. 
Furthermore, the Director discussed the requirements for meeting each of the three prongs under the 
Dhanasar precedent decision and concluded: 
. . . [T]he evidence does not show the [Petitioner] is eligible for, and merits, a national 
interest waiver. 
In conclusion, the [P]etitioner did not establish that it has satisfied each adjudicative 
element to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Therefore, the following 
issues independently form the basis for this intended revocation: 
• Misrepresentations and false information provided 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner claimed "[t]here was a slight translation error in the 
recommendation letter ofl Iand offered an updated letter from him and a statement 
from a translator addressing the purported translation error. Moreover, the Petitioner contended "[t]he 
translation error was immaterial" and "it only points to the one research project and one 
recommendation letter" and "[t]he other 3 recommendation letters and the ample objective evidence 
in Exhibits 3 through 10 were not in question." The Petitioner also submitted a letter from I I 
I I 
In revoking the petition's approval, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's documentation and 
stated the updated letter from I I did "not overcome the misrepresentation of the 
[Petitioner's] experience and importance ofhis role and the effect ofhis work in the field." In addition, 
the Director found: 
[I]t appears that the [Petitioner] misrepresented research experience and material 
submissions, in addition to submitting questionable letters ofrecommendation. In [the 
Petitioner's] case, email exchanges between the self-petitioner and the individuals who 
signed the letters of recommendation confirm that [the Petitioner's] immigration 
lawyer drafted all of the letters, and the only role that the signers took was to provide a 
signature. According to [ the Petitioner], letters of recommendation from I I 
ere all prepared by [ the Petitioner] in Korean 
3 
and later translated by the law office in English. Three reference writers also confirmed 
that the letters were prepared by [the Petitioner] and his lawyer but claimed they read 
and made some edits before signing the letters. However, email exchanges between 
[the Petitioner] and these writers show the only changes made to the letters were minor 
changes about themselves at the beginning of the letters and no one made any changes 
regarding [the Petitioner's] work described in the letters. These misrepresentations call 
into question particularly the second and third prongs of Matter of Dhanasar 26 I&N 
Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) as to [the Petitioner's] ability to advance his proposed endeavor 
in the United States, and whether it would be beneficial to do so, which is material to 
whether the beneficiary is eligible for the requested benefit. 
By claiming his work experience with false information, the [P]etitioner willfully made 
a false representation, and it is material to whether the [Petitioner] is eligible for the 
requested benefit. 
USCIS will enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the 
[P]etitioner. 
If: upon reconsideration, the approval previously granted is revoked, the director shall provide the 
petitioner or the self-petitioner with a written notification of the decision that explains the specific 
reasons for revocation. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). Because the Director did not properly revoke the 
approved petition, we will remand the matter for the following reasons. 
In the NOIR, the Director referenced "letters of recommendation" and "questionable letters of 
recommendation." However, the Director did not specifically identify the letters. While he indicated 
a letter claiming the Petitioner's role and research in a British Medical Journal article, the Director 
did not elaborate or explain why the other letters were "questionable." Moreover, although the NOIR 
mentioned the three-prong Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director did not discuss why the 
Petitioner did not fulfill the three prongs. Instead, the Director generally stated the Petitioner "did not 
establish that it has satisfied each adjudicative element to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit." Here, the Director did not provide the Petitioner sufficient information that specifically 
explained the proposed grounds for revocation. 
In the revocation, although he acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of documentation, the 
Director did not explain why the evidence did not overcome the grounds in the NOIR. In addition, 
the Director did not address the Petitioner's arguments made in response to the NOIR. Furthermore, 
the Director raised additional derogatory information not discussed in the NOIR. Specifically, the 
email exchanges between the Petitioner and the signers of the letters, the immigration lawyer who 
drafted the letters, and the signature role of the claimed authors. Moreover, while he indicated the 
misrepresentations called into question the second and third prongs of Dhanasar' s analytical 
framework, the Director did not further elaborate and conduct an analysis of these two prongs. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director did not properly revoke the approved petition. The Director did not include information 
in the NOIR that was later used as a basis for revocation; this did not afford the Petitioner the 
opportunity of addressing the issues presented in the final revocation. Additionally, the final 
revocation notice did not address some rebuttal claims and evidence the Petitioner provided. Further, 
the Director did not conduct a proper Dhanasar analysis, discussing the evidence in the record and 
explaining the Petitioner's ineligibility for the second and third prongs. We will therefore remand the 
matter to the Director to issue a new NOIR, covering these issues and also considering the additional 
arguments and evidence on appeal. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5