sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Ophthalmology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10090778 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 19, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of ophthalmology, 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) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had not established that she met the second and third prongs under the 
analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . 884. As a result, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus 
of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she is eligib le for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Although not specifically addressed in the Director's decision, the record demonstrates that the 
Petitioner 1) qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 2 and 2) meets the 
first prong under the analytical framework set for in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 . 
For the reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the remaining two prongs of the Dhanasar analysis. 
1 We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
2 The Petitioner presented an academic credentials evaluation describing the equivalence of her doctor of medicine , doctor 
of philosophy in s~euce with a major in health science, and master of medical science in ophthalmology degrees from the 
I I Universit ] See 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(k)(3)(i)(A) . 
A. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong of the Dhanasar analysis focuses on the Petitioner. To determine whether she is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited 
to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. 
Among the submitted evidence are copies of the Petitioner's multiple advanced degrees, numerous 
cited articles published in top medical journals, many of which list her as the first-author, and several 
reference letters from medical professionals and researchers that explain how the Petitioner has 
advanced the field's knowledge in the dia nosis and treatment of a number of retinal diseases, 
including! I retinopathy and retinitis. I I a professor in the 
Department of Ophthalmology at~~~University College of Medicine and the I I Hospital, 
discusses a number of the Petitioner's research projects, including her finding that the recurrence of 
thel I virus in one or both eyes "was often the result of the virus becoming latent ... and therefore 
[she] extended the treatment period of the antiviral I I" which "successfully minimized 
recurrence, thereby establishing a proven strategy to treat patients that yields minimal adverse effects." 
I I a professor of ophthalmology at the I !Eye Institute at I I 
University, explains that "by treating patients withl ~ injections rather than the 
often-used antivirals," the Petitioner was able to prevent "the effects associated with antivll"al age~ts.'~ 
t-----,... ___ __,, an honorary clinical associate professor within th1>:I I University 
s Department of Ophthalmolo y and Visual Sciences, describes the Petitioner's research on 
r----.-----,.==========""'-.:a.::::n:..:;d:....:i.::::n:.:::.,-dicates that she found that "a,gressile treatments of anti-
and ~-------------' most effectively treated while minimizing I 
complications" and is "phenomenally valuable for the real wqtld_a12121ipation of treatments." 
I laan associate professor of ophthalmology at theL___J Universit indicates 
that the Petitioner' sl I research "proved the effectiveness of generating~---~--_, 
b 
I that retain their original corneal phenotypes, thus verifying the beneficial use 
therapy over corneal transplants, which require human donors" and "has real world applications 
as it introduces an alternative to corneal transplants." 
In addition, we note the Petitioner's lengthy and progressive history in her field including as a resident, 
intern, clinical fellow, clinical assistant professor and research assistant. Further, she will continue to 
perform I ~ research to I I tissues of the eye" at the Department of 
Ophthalmology at I University. The evidence, when considered in the aggregate, establishes 
that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research in the United States. 
The Petitioner's experience and expertise in ophthalmology, published work and its impact upon other 
researchers, record of success in contributing to research projects, and progress in the area of 
advancing the study of retinal diseases establish that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor. We therefore conclude that she satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
2 
B. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Not only does 
the Petitioner possess considerable experience and expertise, but the record also demonstrates the 
widespread benefits associated with research developments in her field and their broad application. 
The Petitioner has documented her past successes in advancing research and providing influential 
research findings. In addition, her work has garnered interest from other researchers in the medical 
community who used it to farther their own research. Based on the Petitioner's track record of 
successful research and the significance of her ongoing studies, we find that she offers contributions 
of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that she has established she is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3