The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of ophthalmology, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofDhanasar, 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 eligible for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproofto demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010).
Analysis
Although not specifically addressed in the Director's decision, the record demonstrates that the Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.
Petitioner 1) qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree first prong under the analytical framework set for in Matter ofDhanasar, 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.
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 IUniversit ] See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).
We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). and 2) meets the
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.Past record does not show influence or success
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! Iretinopathy and retinitis. I Ia professor in the Department ofOphthalmology at~~~University College ofMedicine and theI IHospital, discusses a number of the Petitioner's research projects, including her finding that the recurrence of thel Ivirus in one or both eyes "was often the result ofthe virus becoming latent ... and therefore [she] extended the treatment period of the antiviralI I" which "successfully minimized recurrence, thereby establishing a proven strategy to treat patients that yields minimal adverse effects."
I Ia professor of ophthalmology at the I !Eye Institute atI 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 IUniversity sDepartmentofOphthalmolo yandVisualSciences,describesthePetitioner'sresearchon r----.-----,.==========""'-.:a.::::n:..:;d:....:i.::::n:.:::.,-dicates that she found that "a,gressile treatments of anti- and~ -------------' most effectively treated while minimizingI 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 Iresearch "proved the effectiveness of generating~---~--_, Ithat retain their original corneal phenotypes, thus verifying the beneficial use b 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 Itissues of the eye" at the Department of Ophthalmology atI 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.
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.
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.