sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Urologic Oncology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25674629 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 11, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a physician-researcher in the field of urologic oncology, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) 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 
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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence , the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief asserting that he is eligible for a 
national interest waiver . The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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 sustain the appeal. 
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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S . Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may , as 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that 
a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a resident physician in the Department of Urology 
at I I University and anticipated continuin his work through a fellowship program; ultimately, 
he began a urologic oncology fellowship at The Petitioner initially stated that, upon 
completing his urological specialty training program at _ he intended to continue to make 
advances in his scientific endeavor of conducting observational and interventional studies and data 
analyses addressing diseases of significant human morbidity and mortality. Specifically, the Petitioner 
intends to conduct clinical trials to develop surgical approaches to enhance delivery of care for cancer 
patients. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has established eligibility for the national 
interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
As evidence of his proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance, the Petitioner stated 
that he will continue to provide clinical care as a physician to cancer patients and to conduct research 
and lead clinical trials; he endeavors to impact the costliness of healthcare provision and to "create 
and develop innovative surgical approaches ... to enhance delivery of care for patients suffering from 
cancer." The Petitioner submitted information from the American Cancer Society and the National 
Cancer Institute discussing urologic cancers and the economic burdens of patients receiving cancer 
care, as well as letters of endorsement from experts in the field discussing the implications of his 
research on patient treatment and recovery. Additionally, the Petitioner asserted that his citation 
record, publications in scientific journals, and presentations at conferences further demonstrated that 
his proposed research has broader implications for the field through dissemination of the results of 
that research. The Director determined that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit and is of 
national importance. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that 
he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
2 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their 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. Id. at 890. 
The Director determined that, after consideration of these factors, the evidence submitted did not 
support the Petitioner's statements. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence of record establishes 
that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records, 2 published articles, peer 
review activity, and articles that cite to his research findings. The record also includes letters of 
endorsement from experts in the field in senior positions at the University of I I Health 
Sciences Center, the University of I I Medical School, I I University 
School of Medicine, I I University School of Medicine,! !General Hospital, 
University School of Medicine, the I I and the I I these letters provide 
detailed descriptions of the Petitioner's research accomplishments, including his development of 
surgical techniques that significantly impact patient recovery and have been utilized by medical 
centers in the United States and abroad. These letters also attest to the importance of the publication 
of the Petitioner's research in journals like the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Case Report and 
Urology, as well as the significance of his authorship of a chapter in a publication by the American 
Urological Association (AUA) that is relied upon by specialists nationwide for the delivery of optimal 
patient care. The letters also confirm the Petitioner's authorship of a test issued by the AUA that is 
required of practicing urologists to obtain Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits in order to 
maintain their licenses. They also emphasize the relevance of the presentation of the Petitioner's 
research at multiple seminars, the inclusion of three of the Petitioner's research projects at the AUA's 
annual conference, and the widespread use of his study on over-the-counter supplements as a guide to 
educate patients and to safeguard the public from complications associated with certain products. The 
Petitioner's record of success leading research projects and developing surgical methods in his STEM 
field position him well to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Whether on Balance a Waiver is Beneficial 
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. 3 In performing 
2 The Petitioner received a Doctor of Medicine from the _______ _.University School of Medicine in 2017. 
For purposes of assessment under the second prong, USCTS considers an advanced degree in the fields of science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-tied to the proposed endeavor and related to work furthering a STEM 
area impmiant to U.S. competitiveness or national security-an especially positive factor to be considered along with other 
evidence. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https:///www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 When evaluating the third prong and whether the United States may benefit from the individual's entry, regardless of 
whether other U.S. workers are available, USCTS considers the following combination of facts contained in the record to 
be a strong positive factor: possession of an advanced STEM degree, engagement in work furthering a STEM area 
important to U.S. competitiveness, and that the individual is well positioned to advance the proposed STEM endeavor of 
national importance. See USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(2). 
3 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Upon review, we conclude that the waiver of the labor certification requirement 
for the Petitioner would, on balance, be beneficial to the United States. 
The evidence demonstrates that, as a research physician with a record of published influential research 
ventures who has developed surgical techniques and treatment methods adopted by others, the 
Petitioner possesses experience and expertise in his STEM field. The evidence also demonstrates the 
widespread economic and public health benefits associated with research progress in improving 
treatment methods for cancer and other urologic disorders. In addition, letters from experts in the 
field, including one from a distinguished fellow at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC), provide a reasoned analysis of why the labor certification process is not well suited for 
discovering highly skilled scientists and researchers. Based on the Petitioner's history of successful 
research and the significance of his proposed work to advance U.S. scientific and public health 
interests, we conclude that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit 
the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. The Petitioner, 
therefore, meets the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that he has established he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4