dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business And Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 26, 2024 In Re: 30291272 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
advanced degree professional, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Director noted in the decision that a request for evidence (RFE) was issued requesting further 
clarification for several issues, but United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) never 
received a response to that request. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that a response to the RFE was 
mailed to USCIS but it arrived late due to a delay by the United States postal services. The Director's 
decision also addressed many of the Petitioner's EB-2 classification and her assertions regarding the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Director discussed multiple pieces of evidence 
individually and identified numerous deficiencies in the evidence, and explained specifically why the 
evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. The appeal brief 
does not claim any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Matter ofBurbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. 
Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally 
accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) Uoining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the 
decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director 
thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's EB-2 classification claims and the three 
prongs of Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the response to the RFE was mailed to arrive to users by the 
due date, but it arrived late because of a delay with the postal service. However, the Director noted, 
and service records indicate, that users never received a response for this RFE. The Petitioner on 
appeal did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that a response to the RFE was in fact mailed 
to users, and within the required due date. 
Further, while the Petitioner claims she will pursue her work as a business executive and educator, the 
record does not adequately show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's services and 
improvements stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or the 
U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner must 
support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
r&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the projected U.S. economic impact or job 
creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The petition will remain denied. 
The Petitioner's appeal does not sufficiently address or contest the eligibility issues the Director found 
the petition will remain denied. Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of 
her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2