The Petitioner, an assistant professor of medicine, 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (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 dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance and thus, he did not meet the required first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner' s appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
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.
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent p. 2 degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. Id. If a doctoral degree is customarily required for the specialty, the non-citizen must possess a U.S. doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. Id.
If a 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) ofthe 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, 1 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.
Analysis
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 Therefore, 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.
The Petitioner states that he is a faculty member and practicing physician, as well as an acclaimed medical researcher, with a focus on "improving healthcare delivery for underserved populations while addressing critical healthcare challenges." He states that his proposed endeavor is to continue his work as a practicing physician and researcher "to continue to enhance the quality of healthcare in the United States through innovative medical research, evidence-based clinical practice, and the education of future healthcare providers."
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of his education, licensing and experience. He provided a resume, a personal statement describing his proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, and recommendation and support letters. He also submitted evidence of his publications and research, and industry reports and articles discussing a shortage of physicians in the U. S. workforce. In addition, the Petitioner provided a contract of employment as an instructor with from July 2022 to June 2025, and a letter ofpromotion to assistant ~p_ro_fi_e-ss_o_r_i_n_t_h_e_D_e_p_a_rt_m_e_n_t_o_f_M~edicine at[ Ifrom July 2024 to June 2026.
Following initial review, SCOPS determined that the Petitioner had not established his eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. SCOPS issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. SCOPS specifically requested a detailed description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In the RFE, SCOPS acknowledged the Petitioner's personal statement but noted that "the statement failed to provide specific insight as to what he intends to do as a physician.... [The Petitioner] states that he will conduct research, but he does not provide any details about what he will research."
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided additional evidence, as well as copies of previously submitted evidence, in an attempt to establish his eligibility for the national interest waiver. Although the Petitioner did not submit a detailed description of his proposed endeavor as requested in the RFE, he stated that his proposed endeavor "focuses on enhancing the quality of U.S. medical care by addressing the ongoing physician shortage through a combination of clinical practice, physician training, and pragmatic medical research."Relied on a labor shortage He also provided additional details about his current role as an assistant professor withl I He stated that, in addition to his clinical and teaching endeavors, his research "advances evidence-based strategies for primary care physicians, particularly in chronic disease management, non-opioid pain treatments, and sleep disorders."
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, SCOPS concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. SCOPS determined that the record lacked "a specific and well-detailed description about what the self-petitioner endeavors to do in the United States, as well as the nature of the specific endeavor."
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that SCOPS mischaracterized the nature of his proposed endeavor. He submits a brief and asserts legal errors in SCOPS' analysis of the evidence. In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states that this evidence demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he merits a national interest waiver.
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. 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 explaining the endeavor, the petitioner should do so in a straightforward manner and clearly lay out the potential direct impacts of the endeavor and whether the endeavor will be furthered through the course of the person's duties at a particular employer or some other way." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.
On appeal, the Petitioner describes his "professional goal" as "address[ing] the shortage of internal medicine physicians in the United States through an integrated model of clinical care, medical education, and preventive research." He states, "His current role at I I I lwhere he serves as an Assistant Professor, clinician, and researcher, exemplifies this integrated approach." He also states that "the endeavor is unified in both substance and purpose: all aspects of [the Petitioner's] work are designed to improve primary care delivery in underserved U.S. communities and address the systemic challenges posed by the critical national physician shortage." As noted above, SCOPS determined, in both the RFE and the decision, that the record lacked a detailed description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner provides general information about his current role on the faculty ofl land his past research. He relies on recommendation letters that praise his qualifications and accomplishments in his current role. However, these letters do not discuss his proposed endeavor, and the Petitioner does not provide a detailed description of what he proposes to do. Because the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain his specific undertaking, we are precluded from determining whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Regarding the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, while merit may be established in a number of broad areas, including health, the record lacks sufficient documentation establishing how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor meets this requirement.Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner submitted articles addressing the national shortage of physicians in the United States, as well as a 2023 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on chronic pain. The Petitioner highlights the following excerpt from the CDC report:
During 2021, an estimated 20.9% of U.S. adults (51.6 million persons) experienced chronic pain, and 6.9% (17.1 million persons) experienced high-impact chronic pain (i.e. chronic pain that results in substantial restriction to daily activities) with a higher prevalence among non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native adults, adults identifying as bisexual, and adults who were divorced or separated.
In the RFE response, he stated that his past research on non-opioid pain management "aligns with national efforts to combat the opioid crisis by offering safer, evidence-based alternatives for treating chronic pain." However, the Petitioner does not provide corroborating documentary evidence that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake involves research on non-opioid pain management or that he will work with the affected populations identified in the CDC report. The Petitioner's reliance on broad, unsupported statements concerning the healthcare industry in the United States is insufficient to establish the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor.Claims not backed by documents
The Petitioner asserts that there is a shortage of physicians and medical researchers in the United States, and he submitted a number of published articles advocating increased immigration in order to address those shortages. With regard to physician shortages, as SCOPS noted in the decision, Congress established separate waiver provisions at section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for physicians who agree to work in an area designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals or at a health care facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary p. 5 of Veterans Affairs. USCTS adjudicates those petitions outside the Dhanasar framework under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12, which outline additional evidentiary requirements that the Petitioner has not addressed or met.
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to SCOPS' discussion of the national interest waiver framework for physicians under 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. He asserts that SCOPS erred in referencing these regulations "as a valid basis for denial." However, SCOPS did not consider this as a basis for denying the instant petition. Rather, SCOPS raises the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 204.12 in the decision in explaining that these regulations outline the process by which a physician can qualify for the waiver based on an occupational shortage, and that a shortage in the occupation alone is insufficient to demonstrate the national importance of a proposed endeavor. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that proposing to work in an occupation with a national shortage alone is insufficient).
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. We consider potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.
The petitioner in Dhanasar provided a very detailed description of his research plans, focusing on hypersonic propulsion systems, computational fluid dynamics, and applications of research in these areas on the development of aircraft and spacecraft propulsion systems. Id. at 891-2. Here, the Petitioner makes general statements about his past career accomplishments and professional goals of "integrating patient care with groundbreaking research." The Petitioner has not described the specific focus of his proposed research, or where or by what means he would conduct his research. Similarly, his statements of practicing and teaching "evidenced-based approaches to patient care" are insufficiently detailed to support a finding under the first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. On appeal, the Petitioner again describes his current role as internal medicine physician, clinical instructor and scientific researcher. He references a recommendation letter in the record that commends his medical career and skills as a physician and makes the general statement that "he is actively improving medical education, advancing research, and strengthening the field as a whole."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.
The purpose of a national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a U.S. job search. As we noted on appeal, a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing, as p. 6 guidance, the term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation). "In determining national importance, the officer's analysis should focus on what the beneficia,y will be doing rather than the specific occupational classification. The analysis considers whether the petition contains substance that explains and substantiates how working in the proposed endeavor meets the national importance standard." Id. at F.5(D)(3) (emphasis added). The Petitioner's explanation on appeal does not add specificity to his proposed endeavor.
As the Petitioner has not established the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.