dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Applied Linguistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 27, 2024 In Re: 33947457 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher and teacher in the field of applied linguistics, 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 Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established her underlying eligibility for EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional, but that she did not establish she merited a national 
interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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 dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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. 
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) 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 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Director determined that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional and therefore qualifies 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Thus, the remaining issue 
to be determined is whether the 
Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner is a researcher in the field of applied linguistics who proposes to conduct research on 
teaching and curriculum development for English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. The 
Petitioner intends to focus primarily on researching language development opportunities for English 
learners in California and developing a multimodal curriculum for the ESL population for nationwide 
use. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit as required 
to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
However, the Director denied the waiver, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that she 
met the three Dhanasar prongs, namely that her proposed endeavor was nationally important, that she 
was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and that on balance, waiving the job offer 
requirement would benefit the United States. Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in its conclusion, and that she meets all three 
of the Dhanasar prongs and merits a national interest waiver. The Petitioner further claims the 
Director failed to include a discretionary analysis in addition to its substantive analysis on the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. The agency policy the Petitioner references in 
her appeal, however, relates to benefit requests where an officer has determined a petitioner has met 
all applicable threshold eligibility requirements. Here the Director concluded that the Petitioner had 
not met the three Dhanasar prongs which are threshold requirements to establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. As a result, neither the law nor policy required the Director to perform a 
separate discretionary analysis as the Petitioner proposes. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, regarding 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. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead, we consider the proposed endeavor's "potential prospective 
impact," and "look for broader implications." As noted in Dhanasar, "[a]n undertaking may have 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field." Id. Further, "[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 record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit. The Petitioner specifically asserts on appeal that the Director erred in determining 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was not nationally important solely because she had not 
established it had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or had other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. We agree that these are not the only 
factors that may establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor as discussed in Dhanasar. 
See id. at 889-90 ( discussing various considerations for assessing national importance of a proposed 
endeavor). However, although the Director did not specifically discuss all of the Dhanasar prong one 
considerations in assessing the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor, for the reasons 
explained below, the record on appeal supports the Director's overall determination that the Petitioner 
has not established the national importance of her endeavor and therefore has not established eligibility 
for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner provided, in part, personal statements in support of her Form I-140 wherein she stated 
that her proposed endeavor is to build on her previous experience by seeking an assistant professor 
position in the United States allowing her to conduct research on teaching and curriculum development 
for ESL courses. She explained that she intends to focus on the needs of ESL learners in California 
which contributes to the national goal of cultivating a linguistically competent and culturally diverse 
workforce which is crucial for U.S. competitiveness and promotion of an inclusive society. She further 
explained that she intends to develop a multimodal ESL curriculum that will benefit ESL learners by 
promoting inclusivity and accessibility while also serving as tool for cultural integration. She claimed 
this curriculum will empower ESL students to thrive in the United States and create a more integrated, 
culturally rich, and economically vibrant society. She stated her proposed endeavor will benefit 
educators and language learners and that the results of her proposed endeavor will be circulated 
through peer-reviewed publications. 
The Petitioner also submitted two letters of recommendation that generally speak to her character and 
professional experience as well as the value of her previous research to the applied linguistics field 
and language learning overall. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted proof of receipt of a Award to 
address the intersection of language, gender, and equity in Pakistan; copies of her publications; and 
articles on the global importance of the English language and the responsibility the United States has 
in teaching English language students. 
We acknowledge the above evidence which primarily describes the Petitioner's experience in the field 
of applied linguistics or the overall impact applied linguistics and ESL learning have in the United 
States. In assessing national importance, our focus, however, is on the specific endeavor that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake and its prospective impact, rather than her credentials and experience 
or the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
3 
Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the research 
she intends to conduct offers original innovations to advance, or otherwise has national or global 
implications in, the field of applied linguistics commensurate with national importance. The 
Petitioner's general assertions in her written statements regarding the contributions her proposed 
endeavor may make to cultivating a linguistically competent and culturally diverse workforce lack 
sufficient probative detail and are not corroborated in the record to establish the asserted contributions 
would have broader implications in the field of applied linguistics or would have other broader 
prospective impact. We note, for instance, although the letters of recommendation generally assert 
the value of her research to the applied linguistics field and language learning, the letters and articles 
submitted by the Petitioner do not address the Petitioner's specific plans to research language 
development opportunities for English learners in California or develop a multimodal curriculum for 
the ESL population for nationwide use, nor do they discuss with sufficient specificity the impact or 
broader implications of those plans or how such impact would result from her specific endeavor. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner has previously received a I IAward in 
Pakistan and has publications to her name, she has not shown that they relate to the research in which 
she proposes to engage in the United States and has not explained how they otherwise establish that 
her current endeavor is nationally important. The Petitioner further does not specifically address 
whether her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, nor does she quantify 
other substantial positive economic effects stemming from her proposed endeavor that may implicate 
national importance. Accordingly, we find the Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
endeavor is nationally important. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that she demonstrate her proposed endeavor is nationally important. She therefore has not established 
she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she was well 
positioned to advance the endeavor, or 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, as are required under prongs 
two and three of the Dhanasar analytical framework. While the Petitioner also contests these 
conclusions on appeal, since our determination that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed 
endeavor is nationally important is dispositive of his appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
the appellate arguments on these issues. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4