remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Medicinal Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19825435 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 9, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(2). 
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 Director also dismissed the subsequently filed motion to reconsider. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully adjudicate the issues and that he is 
eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we agree with the Petitioner 
that the Director's decision is insufficient for review and will remand the matter to the Director for 
further action and consideration. 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) Nationalinterestwaiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) thatthe foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job off er and thus of a labor ce1iification. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
In order to show an individual is a professional holding an advanced degree, the petition must be 
accompanied by "[a]n official academic record showing that the alien has a United States advanced 
degree ora foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Although the Director's decision 
did not address this issue, the Petitioner's Ph.D. in chemistry from I University establishes that 
he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
off er, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionary in nature). 
2 
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner held the position of postdoctoral research associate in the division 
of Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry! of thel I 
School of Pharmacy at the University where he specializes in 
the field of medicinal chemistry and is responsible for the "[d]evelopment of chemical probes and 
synthesis of small molecule inhibitors for understudied protein kinases." 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Director's 
decision, however, did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner satisfies prong one of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
2. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner contends that his education, position, research experience, recommendation letters from 
others in the field, citation record,joumal ranking and impact factor, and research funding demonstrate 
that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. The Director's decision, however, did not 
include a sufficient analysis of the content of the letters or a proper discussion of the deficiencies in 
the remaining evidence presented under this prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
For example, regarding the Petitioner's claims of funding from the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH), 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not "provide evidence showing that his contribution was 
a factor in receiving the grants." In Dhanasar, we explained that: 
[T]he record includes documentation that the petitioner played a significant role in projects 
funded by grants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA") and the 
Air Force Research Laboratories ("AFRL") within DOD. Thus, the significance of the 
petitioner's research in his field is corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest 
in his research, as well as by consistent government funding of the petitioner's research 
projects. 
In addition, the record established that Dr. Dhanasar "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, n.11. Here as evidence of the recei t of funding, the Petitioner provided a document 
entitled Not onl does it not include the Petitioner's 
name, but it lists three other individuals from among others, as the recipients of 
grants. 
3. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The Director's decision listed a number of factors that USCIS may consider in determining whether, on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer and thus of a 
labor certification, but did not sufficiently evaluate the Petitioner's arguments and evidence as they relate 
to these factors. 
3 
III. CONCLUSION 
In light of the above, we are remanding the petition for the Director to properly apply all three prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4