The Petitioner is a neuroscience researcher who 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 (NIW) of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2).
SCOPS denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the record established that the Petitioner qualified for the underlying visa classification, but she did not merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.
Ifa petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that:
- 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.
Id. USC IS' decision to grant or deny an NIW is discretionary in nature. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the First, Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals).
Analysis
A. Eligibility for the EB-2 Classification
SCOPS determined that the Petitioner was eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on her Ph.D. equivalent in Neurobiology. Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner merits an NIW of the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement as a matter ofdiscretion. Based on this pa1iicular record ofproceedings, we disagree with SCOPS' adverse conclusion.
B. National Interest Waiver
In 2010 the Petitioner earned her Ph.D. in Neurobiology, after which she served in two postdoctoral fellowships for a total of six years. In between her postdoctoral fellowships she was an assistant investigator at an institute in her home country. She most recently served as a research associate at the
1. Substantial Merit and National Importance (Collectively Dhanasar's First Prong) The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. When we evaluate national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work. Rather, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of their actual proposed work. Id. A petitioner must demonstrate the proposed endeavor will "impact the field ... more broadly" (Id. at 893) and that it has "broader implications" (Id. at 889). Such endeavors may have "national or even global implications within a particular field" (Id. at 889), "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance" (Id. at 890), or has the potential to widely advance and broadly affect U.S. strategic interests (Id. at 892). USCIS policy also provides that "if the evidence of record demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (citing Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90, 892). The Petitioner provided the following about her proposed endeavor:
My proposed endeavor is to investigate the peripheral and central mechanisms of chronic pain by identifying the function of specific genes and neuronal subtypes, in both the trigeminal ganglion and the brain, in order to uncover novel therapeutic targets for chronic pain treatment and ultimately develop new strategies for pain management and improve patient outcomes. To progress this endeavor, I will utilize my extensive experience with chronic pathological pain models, advanced imaging techniques, molecular biology, chemogenetics, optogenetics, and pain-related behavioral assessments.
My proposed endeavor is my overarching goal for my research career, and it will not change regardless of where I am employed. Therefore, while I will engage in employment opportunities that are aligned with the goals ofmy proposed endeavor, my ability to pursue my proposed endeavor is in no way limited to any one employer or role.
When the Petitioner responded to SCOPS' request for evidence, she described two research projects she planned to pursue to advance her proposed endeavor, and she described how those projects advance the urgent interests of the United States. The first was to use genetic tools to pinpoint which nerve cells in the face are responsible for chronic pain. By identifying these specific cells, she hopes to find a way to unplug the pain without losing the ability to feel other sensations. In the second project, the Petitioner intends to explore mapping the brain's wiring to understand how chronic pain causes emotional distress and memory problems and whether those side effects can be addressed. SCOPS decided the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit and we agree with that determination. But they also concluded the Petitioner did not make a showing that her endeavor was of national importance. The record includes the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, academic records, published work, and documentation of numerous aiiicles that cited to her research findings. The Petitioner also offered reference letters describing her research expertise and her past record ofsuccess in investigating neuropathic pain. Several letter authors identify specific examples of how the Petitioner's research progress has affected the field and she offered probative evidence to corroborate those examples. The Petitioner has explained why the benefits of her proposed endeavor extend beyond her employer or its clients. We therefore withdraw SCOPS' adverse decision here and we conclude that by establishing her proposed endeavor's substantive merit and national importance, the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
2. 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: (1) their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; (2) a model or plan for future activities; (3) any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and ( 4) the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.Past record does not show influence or success Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890.
Although we have some reservations about the issue offunding-the Petitioner claims she has secured funding for her projects but it was other co-authors who actually obtained the funding-we agree with SCOPS that based on the evidence the Petitioner presented, her experience and expertise as a neuroscientist, published articles, citation evidence, record of success contributing to various research projects, and progress in her field position her well to advance her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has demonstrated that she satisfies the second ofDhanasar 's prongs.
3. 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. Id. at 890-91. In perfonning this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: (1) 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; (2) whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and (3) whether the national interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. Id. In each case, the factors 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.
We also withdraw SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not establish she meets Dhanasar's third prong. As a neuroscientist, the Petitioner possesses considerable experience and expertise in research involving neuropathic pain. The record also demonstrates the widespread benefits associated with research progress aimed at improving clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with chronic pathological pain. In addition, the Petitioner has documented her past successes in advancing research in her field and in publishing influential neurological research findings. Based on the Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of her proposed work to advance U.S. public health interests, we conclude 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. The Petitioner therefore satisfies the third prong ofthe Dhanasar framework.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has satisfied Dhanasar 's required 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.