Date of Decision: March 8, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Pharmacy
Petitioner Information
Profession: Pharmacist
Field: Pharmacy
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Advanced Degree Professional: The petitioner earned a Doctor of Pharmacy degree from a U.S. university.
Criteria Not Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The petitioner’s proposed endeavor to work as a clinical pharmacist in underserved areas and eventually own a pharmacy was not deemed to have substantial merit and national importance. The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how her work would impact the field of pharmacy on a broader scale beyond her individual patients and employers.
Key Points from the Decision:
Substantial Merit and National Importance: The endeavor must have both substantial merit and national importance, affecting broader implications within the field. The petitioner’s proposed activities were found to impact individual patients and communities but lacked evidence of broader national importance.
Supporting Evidence: The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation and business plans. However, these documents did not sufficiently establish the national importance of the endeavor. The letters highlighted the petitioner’s qualities and contributions but did not provide persuasive details on how the endeavor would significantly impact the field of pharmacy on a national level.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner’s proposed business plans and letters did not adequately explain how the endeavor would save healthcare expenditures or create substantial positive economic effects. The evidence did not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level required by the Dhanasar framework.
Proposed Endeavor
The petitioner proposed to work as a clinical pharmacist in underserved areas and eventually own a pharmacy. She aimed to serve underserved populations, providing necessary care and training pharmacy students willing to take on this challenging yet rewarding path.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The petitioner’s proposed endeavor was intended to benefit underserved communities. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate a broader national impact as required. General statements about the importance of pharmacists in underserved areas were not sufficient to meet the criteria of substantial merit and national importance.
Supporting Evidence:
The petitioner provided letters of intent, a business plan, and advisory letters. However, these documents lacked specific details on the national impact of her work. The business plan projected job creation and revenue but did not convincingly link these outcomes to a broader national significance.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The documentation provided did not clearly explain how the proposed endeavor would save healthcare expenditures or create significant economic benefits on a national level. The petitioner’s plans were noted to impact local communities but did not meet the national importance criterion.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, failing to establish that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance. Consequently, further analysis of the remaining prongs was deemed unnecessary.
