dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33403487 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an economist, 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States was of national importance. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
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. 
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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
1 Profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) 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, 2 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but did not sufficiently satisfy that it was of national importance under the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. Id. Based on our de novo review of the record, we agree that the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong. 
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated that his occupation 
was an economist, his job title was "advisor to executive Director," and provided the following 
nontechnical job description: "providing advice to countries on their fiscal, monetary, financial sector, 
and structural policies." He further detailed in an accompan in statement that that his current position 
was at the headquarters of the ____________________ and has 
advised more than 60 countries on "fiscal, monetary, financial sector, and structural policies". He 
contended that he provided counsel to these countries similar to the approach of the U.S. Federal 
Reserve during the COVID-19 pandemic. In support of an assertion that he would have a sustainable 
and long-term career in the United States, the Petitioner also stated that he has received other job offers 
in the United States in financial management and investment planning. Before the Director, the 
Petitioner submitted personal statements regarding his educational and professional experience and 
the proposed endeavor; academic records; employment verification letters; correspondence from 
employment recruiters; support letters from friends and associates; a letter regarding his membership 
in an employee resource group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) staff; materials 
from a professional conference in which he participated materials about the IMF and digital currency; 
and publications authored by the Petitioner about the economic status of various countries. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE) by the Director, the Petitioner further described his 
proposed endeavor as empowering economic growth in developing countries engaging with civil 
society groups, think tanks, international organizations, and the U.S. government. He stated that this 
2 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 
endeavor aligned with U.S. interests given that the U.S. government already pursues similar objectives 
through diplomatic efforts. The Petitioner went on to state that his endeavor promoted U.S. interests 
and contributed to economic growth in the United States by fostering stable markets for U.S. 
companies and supporting the growth of U.S. commercial and investment activities. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner 
qualifies for a national interest waiver. Regarding prong one, the Director concluded that the record 
did not demonstrate the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit or national importance, 
as his professional plan only described the work of an economist but did not quantify the benefit of 
his individual work in terms of national importance beyond his employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and copies of previously-submitted evidence. He generally 
asserts that the Director erred in the conclusion that he is not eligible for the requested national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner argues that the Director's decision ignores "the most significant evidence" 
related to his endeavor, which he contends was a letter from his employer describing his current role. 
He describes th _______________________________ 
capacity and his own position as having responsibility for preparing, formulating, and presenting 
complex fiscal, monetary, and financial analysis. The Petitioner claims that the Director failed to 
consider his work and the global importance of the including the evidencehe previously 
submitted of his membership in an employee LGBT initiative and statements from thel_JExecutive 
Board regarding several countries and their economic health. He states that he has demonstrated that 
his work has both substantial merit and national importance given its relationship between the United 
States and thel lmember states. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The term "endeavor" 
is more specific than the general occupation; a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the 
occupation normally involves, but what types of work the person proposes to undertake specifically 
within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Simply being employed in an occupation does not constitute 
an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings. Id. 
In the instant case, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor appears to be limited to the confines of his 
existing employment. The Petitioner indicates on appeal that he intends to continue his current work 
as an economic policy advisor to thel Ias he claimed before the Director. 
The record does not indicate, nor does the Petitioner claim, that he would engage in this work in 
additional capacities. 3 We recognize the mission of the We additionally acknowledge the 
Petitioner's expertise and the documentation the Petitioner has provided regarding his contributions 
to his current position. However, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the importance of the goals 
his endeavor seeks to address is misplaced. The issue here is not the broader implications of the 
but rather the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed work as an economic 
3 The record before the Director includes two pieces of correspondence the Petitioner received from recruiters. While the 
Petitioner's personal statements and the Director's decision refer to these as "job offers", we note that they do not indicate 
that the Petitioner applied for or received offers of employment from these companies. 
3 
policy advisor. The overall importance of an employer does not by itself establish the national 
importance of a petitioner's endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 
that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We also stated that 
"[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. Such effects need not be national in scale but must 
demonstrate a potential prospective impact that is "substantial" to a particular area, region, or industry. 
To the extent that the Petitioner's current position as an economic policy advisor constitutes an 
endeavor, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to conclude that the effects of his endeavor 
will rise to the level of national importance. While the Petitioner claims that his endeavor promotes 
U.S. interests, he has not submitted documentary evidence to corroborate this claim. The testimonial 
evidence in the record, such as the recommendation letters and the reports he has published regrading 
member countries, do not offer evidence of how his work has impacted his field more broadly 
such that it would rise to the level of national importance. Instead, they outline the contributions he 
has made to his current employer and his academic and professional background. Furthermore, the 
letter the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal as the most significant piece of evidence describes his work 
as representing nine countries on the Executive Board of the This letter also notes that the 
Petitioner maintains contacts with and closely monitors development in his home country. However, 
the letter does not describe how the Petitioner's endeavor promotes U.S. interests as he claims, nor 
does it detail the impact of his endeavor beyond his current employer and its stakeholders, nor does it 
offer additional insight regarding the national impact of his proposed endeavor. Finally, while we do 
not seek to diminish the value of the Petitioner's involvement in the LGBT community, the submitted 
evidence does not establish that his activities or the scope of the groups in which he participates have 
national reach. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he is qualified for the benefit 
sought. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must also support his 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Id. at 376. As the Petitioner has not done 
so here, he has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor in the United States will have 
national importance under the first Dhanasar prong. 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4 
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. 
5