dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 02, 2024 In Re: 30624480 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a Spanish language educator, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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. 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unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as an advanced degree professional but did not demonstrate that they are well 
positioned to advance the endeavor, or that on balance 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 
pursuant to 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 l&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. 
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. 
Whilst 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). Dhanasar states that users may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen 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 
noncitizen 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 noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen 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, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. users may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Petitioner has attained the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree in modem languages 
and a master's degree in teaching Spanish as a foreign language from an accredited institution of 
higher education in the United States. But the Director concluded that the evidence of record did not 
demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prong. 1 
1 The Director's decision did not discuss whether the evidence in the record demonstrated the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. And we harbor significant doubts about whether the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor was expressed in a consistent manner. For example, the Petitioner's initial submission expressed a 
nascent intention to make "strategic alliances with non-profit organizations" to essentially serve as an educational 
consultant promulgating a self-developed software application. However, the Petitioner's response to the Director's 
2 
A. Well Positioned To Advance The Proposed Endeavor 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief but does not add new evidence or assertions to address the 
reasoning the Director provided in the decision. In the request for evidence (RFE) and the decision, 
the Director addressed many of the Petitioner's assertions regarding how well the Petitioner was 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The Director discussed multiple pieces of evidence 
individually and quoted material in several instances. For example, the Director discussed the contents 
of the Petitioner's petition support letter authored by counsel, the Petitioner's business plan, proposed 
endeavor statement, updated and initial petition support letter, as well as additional evidence Petitioner 
submitted into the record, such as their teaching certificate from the state of Texas, and software 
application development documentation. The Director identified the evidence and explained the 
specific reasons why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the first Dhanasar prong. See 
Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&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 F3d. 5, 8 (1st 
Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and 
affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). Below we 
provide individualized consideration to the petition and to many of the Petitioner's appellate claims. 
As the Director correctly concluded, the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate with material, 
relevant, or probative evidence that they were well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. As 
the Director correctly observed, the Petitioner did not provide a cognizable plan or model for their 
future activities. As we said earlier, the Petitioner's initial plan to "strategize" with non-profit 
organizations morphed into an intention to establish and direct their own NGO in the United States. 
This rendered the remaining evidence in the record unreliable as it inconsistently referred to either the 
Petitioner's intent to work with non-profits or establish their own non-profit. The Dhanasar analytical 
framework cannot be applied to two dueling endeavors. So we are unable to gauge how well 
positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed endeavor when the Petitioner has not reliably 
identified what their proposed endeavor is. 
The Petitioner also asserts the Director abused their discretion in failing to address all evidence, citing 
Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. The court in Buletini, however, did 
not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine whether it 
request for evidence (RFE) contained a business plan wherein the Petitioner expressed an intention to establish and direct 
their own non-governmental organization (NGO) in the United States. Inconsistent expressions of a proposed endeavor 
inhibit an evaluation into whether the endeavor is substantially meritorious or nationally important. But since our decision 
today is dispositive as to the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus the labor 
certification requirement, we will not evaluate the substantial merit or national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor further and reserve it. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) ("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). 
3 
establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS abuses its 
discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. And the Petitioner 
also cites Chursov v. Miller, l:18-CV-02886-PKS (S.D. NY 2019) that a "partial analysis shall lead 
to an unreasonable and, thus, arbitrary decision." But the Petitioner has not demonstrated the specific 
way the Director's analysis was incomplete other than a generalized assignment of error. 2 When 
USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not 
be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor it is necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 
2013) (Citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. 
Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11 th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
We conclude the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though 
the Director did not address each piece of evidence individually. 
As the Director correctly explained, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding the second 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and conclude the Petitioner has not establish they are 
eligible for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied the second prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. Because the evidence in the record does not establish that they are well 
positioned to advance their proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
appellate arguments regarding their eligibility under the first and third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 
See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 ("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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 526 n. 7 ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We are not bound to follow the unpublished decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the same 
district. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I7N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). 
4