dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Counterterrorism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11283617 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 11, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion,2 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's 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. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Tramportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a 
national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 5 
Regarding his claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicates that he is a 
"counterterrorism security expert . . . currently working as the I I 
~--------------------------------____.," and asserts that 
he is "prepared to employ his expertise to strengthen the homeland security of the United States." 
Towards that end, he describes his prospective endeavor, in relevant part: 
[The Petitioner] views the U.S. as the country where he can most effectively and 
productively employ his expertise in counterterrorism; security management; military 
communications; modem signals communications; crisis communication, response, 
and support; conflict management, mediation, and negotiation; reconciliation 
processes; and staff supervision. 
To accomplish [U.S.] national security goal[s], he pledges to support the following 
priority actions: disrupt terror plots, take direction, eliminate terrorist safe havens, sever 
sources of strength, share responsibility, and combat radicalization and recruitment in 
communities. 
The Petitioner asserts that "his experience and expertise qualify him to support and provide consulting 
for government aid or security agencies, such as USAID and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau 
of Diplomatic Security and Bureau of Counterterrorism, or for the Department of Homeland Security." 
The Petitioner further adds that "[tlhere is a good chance that [the Petitioner] will continue his 
employment withl f." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for a detailed description of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, and noted that if the Petitioner planned on pursuing multiple endeavors - that he 
should provide information and evidence regarding his plans for each undertaking and explain how 
his time would be divided between them. In response, the Petitioner provided additional 
documentation, such as letters of reference, articles discussing national security issues, and 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner has a master's degree in security management from I ! l Jniversity. 
5 The Petitioner submitted evidence to establish his eligibility for the benefit sought. While we may not discuss every document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
government reports that address national security concerns. While he reiterates some of the general 
areas in which he might work, noting again for instance "there is a good chance that [the Petitioner] 
will continue his employment with I l" he did not provide a detailed explanation and 
documentation to identify and describe the specific endeavor(s) that he would pursue. In denying the 
petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified his proposed endeavor, 
and therefore he did not satisfy Dhanasar' s first prong. We agree. 
The Petitioner presents a high-level listing of general areas in which he might assist in efforts to deter 
terrorism and promote the national security of the United States, ( e.g., security management; military 
communications; modem signals communications; and crisis communication). For example, he 
indicates that he might support and provide consulting for government aid or security agencies, such 
as USAID and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Bureau of 
Counterterrorism, or for the Department of Homeland Security. However, generally describing broad 
areas of experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner might support or consult with 
federal agencies is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor, and that it will have substantial 
merit and national im ortance. He also states in his RFE response, and on appeal, that he is already 
employed byL_ ____ __,...__,_ ........... .LJ..>.i.l..L...L.u.u.L.l.L.1 ......... 1.J.LL"""""'~ headquartered i~ I and as such he 
"is already employed with a.__ _________ __. employer with a substantial presence in the 
United States." However, he does not discuss in sufficient detail how his employment withl I 
.__ __ _.I demonstrates both substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner also alternatively asserts that he might focus on "communication matters that will 
benefit FEMA 6 in its mission." He notes in his RFE response that "emergency management falls 
under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, which states that disaster response 
and building resilience are among its top priorities." Nonetheless, without more details, the Petitioner 
has not established the specific nature of his proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his 
work in the United States will have substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's 
burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done 
so here. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an opinion letter from Dr. P-M-, professor of political science a~._ __ __. 
University, who concludes that the Petitioner "satisfies the [Dhanasar] first prong, because his proposed 
employment is in a field (security) that is both of substantial intrinsic merit and national in scope." The 
professor appears to conflate the eligibility requirements in the Dhanasar first prong, in part, with the 
framework put forth in our precedent decision, Matter of New York State Dep 't ofTransp. ("NYSDOT'), 
22 I&N Dec. 215. 7 As discussed, in announcing the Dhanasar framework we vacated NYSDOT. 8 Here, 
the Petitioner's reliance on the professor's conclusion that a petitioner may meet the first Dhanasar prong 
based on the substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of a particular field is misplaced. 
6 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a component of the U.S. Depaitment of Homeland Secmity. 
7 The NYSDOT framework looked first to see if a petitioner has shown that the area of employment is of "substantial intrinsic 
merit." Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner had to establish that any proposed benefit from the individual's endeavors will be "national 
in scope." Id. Finally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor 
certification were required for the foreign national. Id. 
8 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 884. 
4 
The professor also discusses the expertise the Petitioner gained through various military and security­
related assignments while he was employed first by thel I and later by the 
I I However, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates 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 that the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
Though the professor opines that the Petitioner's "work combating terrorists is invaluable, his education 
impressive, and his promise for future accomplishment undeniable," he does not adequately identify, 
analyze, or discuss the Petitioner's prospective endeavor in the United States.9 
For these reasons, we conclude that the professor's letter is not probative towards establishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm 'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. For the sake of brevity, we will 
not address other deficiencies within the professor's analyses. 
Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Though 
requested by the Director in his RFE, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence 
to demon strate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhanasar we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the 
level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
We conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficientl y 
impact his field or U.S. security interests more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting projects would reach the level of"substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's proposed work 
does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets either the fust or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. Accordingly, 
9 Similarly, the Petitioner has provided reference letters from current and former colleagues who outline his work 
accomplishments and put forth general statements that assert his services would be beneficial to the United States. While the 
letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard, the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific 
endeavor(s) that the Petitioner will engage in or explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhanasar's 
first prong. 
5 
he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of 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. 
6