dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 24, 2024 In Re: 31522431 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and 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. 1 
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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a matter of discretion, 2 
grant a national interest waiver if: 
1 The Petitioner filed her national interest waiver on January 28, 2020. After issuing a request for evidence (RFE), the 
Director denied the waiver on August 20, 2021. On March 14, 2022, we withdrew the Director 's conclusion that the 
Petitioner had established that they were an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. We 
remanded the matter to the Director to detennine if the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification, and if she provided 
sufficient and consistent information regarding her proposed endeavor such that the Director may determine whether a 
waiver of the required job officer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. Upon remand, the 
Director issued an RFE on October 17, 2023. On December 12, 2023, the Director denied the waiver, thus prompting this 
appeal. 
2 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At the initial filing, 
the Petitioner indicated that they intended to work in the occupation of "Education Administrator" and 
indicated their proposed job title as "Education Administrator." The Petitioner included a 
"Professional Plan and Statement" which indicated that the Petitioner intended to continue working as 
an education administrator. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner amended the endeavor by stating, 
"my overall proposed endeavor in the U.S. is to work as an entrepreneur within the field of education." 
The Petitioner submitted an updated plan where she stated that she intended to open at least three 
businesses based in the education sector, including one or more physical language schools, an 
exchange company offering consulting services to foreign public and private schools who want to 
bring in their students for tourism and English immersion in the United States, and a third business 
that outsources foreign language teachers to public and private schools. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and asserts that "the adjudicating officer should not alter the regulations and impose stricter 
standard of proof." We disagree with the Petitioner's characterization. 
The Director did not find that the Petitioner was a professional holding an advanced degree. On appeal 
the Petitioner argues that she earned a bachelor's degree in Letters froml I 
I Iin May 2021. She earned a Specialization in Brazilian Literature and the Construction of 
Text from ________ in June 2005, and in September 2006, a Specialization in School 
Management, Supervision, and Guidance. She notes that she has been licensed by the state of 
California's Commission on Teachers Credentialing since August 2020, she has taken various 
additional courses, and has further advanced her career and education in the field by becoming a 
member of the several professional associations. She further argues that during her more than 22 years 
of experience as an "Education Administrator and Entrepreneur" she served in positions of increasing 
professional responsibility and sophistication, and that the record contained letters from different 
employers verifying the Petitioner's progressive post-baccalaureate experience. However, the 
Director meticulously reviewed the documentation and determined that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence of a "Titulo de Licenciado em Letras" after a course of study from 1998 to 2000, and 
according to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) 
Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), "[t]he 2- to 3-year Titulo de Licenciado 
(Licenciatura) represents attainment of a level of education comparable to 2 to 3 years of university 
study in the United States." Further, the AACRAO indicates that Lato sensu graduate programs lead 
to professional certificates, not to graduate degrees. A United States baccalaureate degree is generally 
found to require four years of education. Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 244 (Comm. 1977). 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
Consequently, the Petitioner did not establish that she had the U.S. equivalent of a baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign master's degree or higher. The Petitioner's employment letters did not establish 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty of education administration, or evidence 
of five years' experience as an entrepreneur. Specifically, the Petitioner is currently a part-time high 
school teacher in foreign language as of August 2020, but the various positions she held prior to the 
time she filed her waiver in January 2020, do not show foll-time work in the specialty of education 
administration. 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit3 but 
not its national importance. As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. On appeal, the Petitioner argues the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor and maintains that her proposed endeavor is to work as an 
education administrator and entrepreneur. On appeal, the Petitioner explains that, "[s ]he has over 22 
years of experience working in academic and educational services, specifically literature with a focus 
on writing composition. She also has experience in personnel management, strategic planning, team 
building, and structuring academic environments." Specifically, the brief claims, "[t]he endeavor 
proposed by the [Petitioner] relies on developing study centers, in the 
state of California. Each center will provide qualified care, combined with educational enrichment, 
and other development activities to those enrolled. It will entail a modem and welcoming environment 
for children from 6 weeks to 12 years old, powered by teams of talented educators." Because the 
Petitioner was put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not 
consider it for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(11) (requiring all requested evidence 
be submitted together at one time); Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining 
to consider new evidence submitted on appeal because "petitioner was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Moreover, 
a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Comm. 1971). 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating 
three businesses in the education sector in California. In Dhanasar, we 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." Id. 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. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
3 In her brief, the Petitioner erroneously claims that the Director determined that her proposed endeavor is not of substantial 
merit. 
3 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her business and services 
largely influence the field and rise to the level of national importance. Similar to this case, in 
Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not 
show through supporting documentation how her particular endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her 
prospective clients in California, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. The Petitioner's 
business plan presented before the Director indicated that her endeavor would involve a $200,000.00 
initial investment, but as the Director pointed out, it was not clear how the Petitioner arrived at that 
approximation and whether it would adequately cover the Petitioner's endeavor to open three 
businesses. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show how her endeavor would utilize a significant 
population of workers in the area, would substantially impact job creation, or provide other economic 
effects. In addition, on appeal, although the Petitioner now claims that "[t]he company is set to impact 
the education industry with an estimated total payment of wages of approximately 1.6 million dollars 
in the first five years of operations, in the state of California," even if credible, the Petitioner did not 
establish the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of"substantial positive 
economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. For all these reasons, the record 
does not establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does 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. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
As the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for the underlying immigrant classification, nor has she 
met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she has not 
demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4