dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 03, 2024 In Re: 31264591 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a teacher, 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 the Petitioner had not shown 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest because the record did not establish that: the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national 
importance, the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, or, on balance, a waiver is 
beneficial. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 a 
national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification under section 203(b )(2)(A), 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. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
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 l&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, 1 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Director found the Petitioner established she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree as required for EB-2 classification. Specifically, the Director determined the record 
contains a U.S. baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and the Petitioner has at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
The Petitioner previously submitted a document from granting the 
Petitioner a qualification as an early childhood education teacher. The Petitioner also submitted a 
diploma evaluation report finding she received a four-year bachelor's degree in early childhood 
education from after graduating in 1998. The evaluation states the 
"4-year [b]acharel from Brazil represents the attainment of a level of education comparable to a 
[b]achelor's degree in the United States." However, other documents of record do not support the 
finding that the Petitioner attended a four-year bacharel program. We note the Electronic Database 
for Global Education (EDGE), an online resource that U.S. courts have found to be a reliable source 
of foreign education equivalencies, indicates that only a four- or five-year bacharel from Brazil will 
represent attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 
The Petitioner's Application for Alien Employment Certification reflects she attended I I 
I I for less than four years, from February 1995 to December 1998. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating she qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, as she has not established she completed a foreign 
equivalence degree to a U.S. baccalaureate. The Director's finding on her eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional is withdrawn. 
The Petitioner has not asserted that she alternatively qualifies for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a company, and a 
which would offer attention deficient hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related courses and training for 
parents, teachers, and coordinators. The Petitioner believes her education in pedagogy, education-
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 
related training courses, and work experience equip her for this endeavor. Initially, the Petitioner 
intends to become a certified teacher in the United States to gain experience working in the schools, 
so she is well-prepared to provide training through her company. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner 
established the substantial merit aspect, the initial half of the first prong, and we concur with that 
determination. 
As the Director found, however, the Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that the 
potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor would impact the industry more broadly and 
sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients to show national or global implications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director erroneously applied a national geographical breadth 
standard in examining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner 
contends the potential impact of the endeavor should be taken into consideration, even if only one 
geographic area of the United States is impacted. However, the Director specifically discussed the 
prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor and examined its impact on both national and regional 
bases in considering employment levels and substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner also 
asserts the Director erroneously indicated she is unable to demonstrate her endeavor has national 
importance if she cannot show significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects for the nation. However, the Director properly laid out multiple 
factors considered in determining whether a proposed endeavor is of national importance, including 
substantial positive effects and significant potential to employ U.S. workers as merely two of the 
relevant factors. Overall, our review finds the Director properly considered whether the endeavor has 
sufficiently broad potential implications on the field to establish national importance. See generally 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Petitioner resubmits on appeal a five-year business plan reflecting an intent to hire 13 instructors, 
one office manager, one cleaner, two sales representatives, one customer service representative, and 
one marketing specialist within five years of business. The plan estimates payroll expenses will rise 
above one million dollars by year five and contains projected profits and taxes for I I
I I and _____ Based on these projections, the plan further attempts to demonstrate 
the effect of this endeavor on the economy. However, the Petitioner did not provide supporting 
evidence corroborating these purported employment and profit figures. The Petitioner contends the 
proposed endeavor, providing professional training and qualifications for those assisting individuals 
with ADHS, will generate a multiplier effect of opportunities and business that go beyond the direct 
and indirect jobs created. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts her business would "actively create[] 
financial bridges, and prompt[] economic development enhancing and improving the functionality and 
monetary output of the nation's economy." However, these general economic claims do not contain 
3 
sufficient detail or explanation and are not supported by objective, corroborating evidence to 
demonstrate how the proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor will offer professional training and qualification for 
educators and parents assisting individuals with ADHD, which rises to the level of national importance 
because it involves child education and related guidance. The Petitioner contends that ADHD, when 
unattended, can have a harmful effect on our society. We do not question the importance of identifying 
and managing ADHS in our society; however, in assessing national importance, we focus, not on the 
specific area or field at issue, but rather on the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake. 
See Id. at 889. The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor is unique due to her own diverse 
professional background and experience in the educational field. The Petitioner argues this 
background demonstrates her ability to adapt and excel in various settings. However, these assertions 
regarding the Petitioner's background and experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
As discussed, although we acknowledge the merit of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not 
shown the endeavor has broader implications beyond the Petitioner's business and clients or that it has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise will have substantive positive effects. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating her proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prongs 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the 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 ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and has not 
met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude the Petitioner 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. 
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 applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4