dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Archaeology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 01, 2024 In Re: 33940250 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an archeologist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as wel I as anational 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest.3 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated his proposed endeavor has substantial merit 
and is of national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. However, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, 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 under 
Dhanasar 's third prong. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is well­
positioned to advance his proposed research under Dhanasar 's second prong or that a waiver of the 
labor certification would be in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
In determining the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance, 
the Director did not specify the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or provide reasoning for the finding. 
The first prong, 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. 
The Petitioner's Form 1-140 states that he intends to work in the United States as a post-doctoral 
scholar and archaeological scientist specializing "in field investigations, analyzing artifacts, 
excavating sites, managing the logistics of projects at sites, writing reports and recommendations, 
teaching, conducting research, and publishing the results of [the] research in academic journals." His 
statement explained that he specializes in Egyptian Mamluk architecture and that U.S. universities are 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The record indicates that the Petitioner received the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctorate degree in Islamic archeology 
from in Egypt in 2016. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
interested in Middle Eastern civilization. Utilizing his experience with Egyptian Mamluk architecture, 
he intends to pursue three endeavors, educate U.S. university students; perform research in 
archaeology and publish his research results in academic journals; and participate in media production, 
including television, magazines, and press. 
In his request for evidence response, the Petitioner elaborated on the details of his proposed research, 
indicating his main endeavor is to conduct research on "African American archaeology and comparing 
it to the Mamluk civilization." His research seeks to "understand how historical slavery has influenced 
the daily lives and architecture ofAfrican Americans." For his research, he would "examine the lasting 
impact of slavery on [ African American] communities, traditions, and built environments" and 
compare the archaeological findings with the Mamluk civilization in order to "draw connections, 
identify patterns, and gain insights into the unique experiences and challenges faced by African 
Americans as a result of their history." He explained that he recently moved to North Carolina and 
wanted to advocate for expanding and preserving African heritage museums and the historical area to 
raise awareness and understanding of African American history in his North Carolina community. 
With respect to the Petitioner's proposed research work comparing African American archaeology and 
to the Mamluk civilization, we find it has substantial merit and is of national importance.4 
In his request for evidence reply, the Petitioner indicated that subsequent to filing this petition, he 
started workin in the United States in three ositions: a co-director of an archeology research project 
at the a director of a research project at I I 
in New York; and an archaeologist and paleontologist for I 
His job duties atl Iinclude grant 
writing, aiding researchers as a site mapper and artifact curator for research on prehistoric quarries in 
the National Forests of North Carolina, and being a liaison with mining and quarrying companies in 
Egypt. 
For his work with _______________ __, the Petitioner does not elaborate 
on the specifics of his work. In addition, the Petitioner cannot materially change the proposed 
endeavor after submitting his petition. USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The 
purpose of a request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether a petitioner has 
established eligibility for the benefit sought as of the time the petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(8). When responding to a request for evidence, a petitioner may not make material changes 
4 The Petitioner ' s statements mainly focus on his research work, and he did not provide evidence explaining his proposed 
teaching activities and media production work . Without further details of the teaching activities and media production 
work, we are unable to determine whether either endeavor is of substantial merit or of national importance. We held in 
Dhanasar that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. An 
endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the types of work a petitioner intends to 
undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS Polic y Manual F.5(0)(2) , https: 
//www.uscis .gov/policy-manual. Moreover , in Dhanasar, we discussed how teaching would not impact a field broadly in 
a manner which rises to national importance. The benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to 
the students being taught and not the wider population. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. Similar to Dhanasar, 
the Petitioner 's proposal to teach at a U.S. university would not rise to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner 's endeavors of teaching and media production do not include details specific enough for us to determine whether 
either has substantial merit or is of national importance, and therefore, do not meet the first Dhanasar prong. 
3 
to the petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). If significant, material changes are made to 
the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a 
petition that is not supported by the facts in the record as at the time of filing. Without further evidence, 
the Petitioner's new employment with ________________ .... materially 
changes his initially indicated proposed endeavor and are not considered for this petition. 
B. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second Dhanasar prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. To 
determine whether an individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider 
factors including, but not limited to 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N at 890. Upon consideration of these factors, we agree with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not demonstrated he is well-positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in the decision by narrowly interpreting the 
evidence instead of considering its cumulative impact. He further argues that the Director did not 
review all the evidence and overlooked evidence, including a university invitation to serve on a 
dissertation panel, an opinion from a university professor highlighting his contributions to the field of 
archeology, and his scholarly publications in academic journals. The Petitioner emphasizes that the 
evidence documents his education, depth of knowledge, and record of success in work related to his 
proposed endeavor. In addition, he claims the evidence shows a clear plan for his endeavor, progress 
he has already made, and interest and support from academics and professionals in his field. 
The record includes the Petitioner's academic records for his bachelor's of arts in archeology from 
Iin Egypt and his master's degree and Ph.D. in Islamic archeology from I II While his Ph.D. renders him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has 
not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is 
well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, the record established that the petitioner held multiple graduate degrees including "two 
master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in 
engineering." Id. at 891. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is well­
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor and education is merely one factor among many that may 
contribute to such a finding. See id. In Dhanasar, we also favorably considered the significance of 
his research which had been corroborated by evidence as having peer and government interest; the 
significance of his role in his research projects; consistent funding from government agencies of his 
research projects; and his position with a U.S. university where he intended to conduct his proposed 
research work. Id. at 892-93. Whilst we do not question the Petitioner's education, skills, or 
knowledge as an archeologist, the Petitioner has not established that his education, skills, or knowledge 
demonstrate a record of success in efforts related to or similar to his proposed endeavor, progress 
towards achievement of his proposed endeavor, or interest from other individuals or entities. 
4 
To show his record of success, the Petitioner emphasizes letters from university professors. While the 
professors' letters state they reviewed the Petitioner's academic credentials and achievements, they do 
not detail how the mentioned contributions and achievements demonstrate progress in his field or a 
record of success. An opinion from an associate professor with the Department of Earth and Ocean 
Sciences and the Director of Space and Drone Remote Sensing Lab at the 
describes the Petitioner's research endeavor and the importance of preserving and understanding 
ancient civilizations. However, when evaluating the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we turn to the Petitioner's successful past performance in the proposed endeavor, as well 
as evidence and information of his achievements and recognition, not the endeavor's importance. See 
id. at 890. 
The opinion letter does not detail the Petitioner's achievements; instead, generally states, "[the 
Petitioner's] educational achievements and research experience provide a strong foundation for his 
proposed endeavor in scientific research" and that "[h]is work has been widely regarded as 
groundbreaking and influential." Moreover, the Petitioner does not explain how the professor's 
academic background in earth and ocean sciences is relevant to the Petitioner's field of archeology or 
is qualifying to express having the claimed expert opinion on the Petitioner's education and 
professional achievements in his field. 
Another opinion from a professor of Egyptology at I I explains the importance of the field of 
archeology and attests to the Petitioner's knowledge ofMamluk era studies. While the opinion names 
the Petitioner's professional work, it does not detail how his work has gained the interest of others or 
constitutes a record of success or progress rending the Petitioner well -positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. For instance, the opinion names the Petitioner's scholarly articles and indicates 
they show his depth of understanding in the field . The opinion, however, only provides generalizations 
of the Petitioner's record of success by stating, "[the Petitioner's] significant contributions to Mamluk 
studies have not only enriched our knowledge but also paved the way for further exploration and 
scholarship in this captivating field." Likewise, the opinion generally references that the Petitioner's 
participation in conferences "contributed valuable insights to the international archaeological 
community." The opinion does not explain in detail how the Petitioner's conference participation 
contributed to the archaeological community or otherwise make him well-positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
The opinion also indicates the Petitioner's current research of food practices along the Nile River and 
his previous archeological research are instrumental in promoting scholarly discourse and knowledge 
dissemination on important historical periods. The opinion, however, does not detail how his research 
on food practices along the Nile River or his other research relates to his proposed research comparing 
African American archaeology to the Mamluk civilization, or otherwise renders him well-positioned 
to advance his endeavor. Not every individual who has conducted original research and published 
findings will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
Next, the Petitioner points to certificates of appreciation and letters of recommendation from scholars 
in his field and his previous employers. While these letters attest to the Petitioner's research skills and 
his knowledge and work with Islamic architecture and art, they do not show how his work represents 
a record of success or progress rending him well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. For 
instance, a letter from the inin Egypt commends the Petitioner's 
5 
work as an archaeologist and his contributions to cultural preservation and historical research in Egypt. 
The letter praises the Petitioner's work in supervising restoration projects, discovery and preservation 
of antiquities, and his dedication to his work, including his archeology work at the I I his 
organization of conferences, and his work on the architecture of palaces. Additional letters from his 
colleagues reference the Petitioner's participation at conferences and training sessions, as wel I as 
generally praise his research abilities, professionalism, work ethic, and cultural heritage knowledge 
while recommending him for fellowships, academic programs, and archeology research. However, 
the letters do not specify how this work is related, or similar to, his proposed endeavor and constitutes 
a record of success for his proposed research work on African American archaeology and comparing 
it to the Mamluk civilization. 
The Petitioner emphasizes a letter from Dr. J-S-, a co-director of and a professor 
with the School of Advanced Studies at the The letter references the 
Petitioner's Ph.D. thesis, 
_________ and highlights the Petitioner's employment with _____ 
in Egypt, "one of the largest and most important archaeological sites in Egypt." Dr. J-S- also attests 
to the Petitioner's knowledge and experience in his field, stating he "will continue to make significant 
contributions to archaeology" and generally recommends the Petitioner to further develop his "career 
and intellectual initiatives." Like the other recommendation letters, the letter from Dr. J-S- attests to 
the Petitioner's professional skills and knowledge as an archeologist, however, does not detail how 
the Petitioner's previous work constitutes arecord of success for his proposed research work. 
Next, the Petitioner argues his record of success is evidenced through his peer review of others in his 
field and his participation in conferences relating to archeology and the Islamic culture. In support of 
his peer review work, the Petitioner submitted an invitation from a university to activities related to a 
student's Ph.D. thesis. However, it is not clear from the record the extent of his peer review or whether 
his level of participation in the peer review process represented a record of success in his field or is 
otherwise an indication that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. For his 
conference presentations, the Petitioner submitted certificates acknowledging his participation and 
letters of recommendation referencing the conferences. However, he did not submit his conference 
articles or other evidence explaining the conference presentations to understand whether they 
sufficiently relate to his proposed endeavor. Without further evidence, we are unable to determine 
whether his conference presentations relate to the proposed endeavor or have garnered the interest of 
other researchers in his field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide details of how he intends to carry out his proposed endeavor 
except to indicate that he has been offered many teaching and researcher positions in the United States. 
The Petitioner did not include evidence of the claimed academic institutions or others having interest 
in him carrying his research work. While he submitted letters relating to his current 
research work with the evidence does not show how his research of food practices along the 
Nile River with I I is related to his proposed endeavor to research African American archaeology 
and comparing it to the Mamluk civilization. 
In Dhanasar, the petitioner showed government interest in his research by providing evidence that he 
obtained government funding supporting his research, he "initiated" or was "the primary award contact 
on several funded grant proposals," and he was "the only listed researcher on many of the grants." 
6 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N at 893, n.11. Here, the Petitioner claims that academic institutions are 
interested in his research work. However, other than colleagues taking note of his proposed endeavor, 
the Petitioner has not offered evidence supporting such claimed interest. Without sufficient evidence 
demonstrating the means or financial support to undertake his proposed research in the United States, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his plan for future activities renders him well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established he is well-positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor and he does not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner is well­
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. This identified 
basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and therefore we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility under the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has 
not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7