dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31112893 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in 
the alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner does not qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree; however, the Director did not address whether, in the alternative, the Petitioner qualifies for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director also concluded 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. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo'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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree 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. 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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. 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). 
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. 
See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner does not qualify for classification as a 
member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree; however, the Director did not address whether, 
in the alternative, the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 
section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Furthermore, the record does not clarify why the Director addressed 
whether the Petitioner may qualify for a national interest waiver if she was ineligible for second­
preference classification, as the Director concluded. 
Because we nevertheless find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest, we reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria. See section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act; see also 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"); Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan to create an "academic consulting and professional 
services company" that will provide "training for teachers and support staff of educational institutions, 
strengthening their skills and soft skills through personal and professional growth activities." The 
Petitioner indicated that her company would employ an "interdisciplinary consulting team made up of 
qualified personnel, and specialists with specific functions," whom she would direct as the company's 
manager. The Petitioner elaborated that the company's employees would include workers with the 
following job categories: business administrator, clinical psychologist, occupational therapist, special 
educational needs professional, "graduates in education," and marketing. However, the Petitioner did 
not specify the number of workers in any particular job category that her company would employ. 
The Petitioner also referenced "potential clients in Florida and throughout United States [sic]." 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted copies of publications that provide generalized information 
regarding education. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's description of the proposed endeavor; however, the 
Director concluded that the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
2 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. The 
Director also observed that the record "fails to demonstrate how working as a school owner, manager, 
and educator has national or even global implications," referencing the first Dhanasar prong. The 
Director further noted that the Petitioner "has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes 
to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects," again referencing the first Dhanasar prong. The Director concluded the record 
does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance, as required by the first 
Dhanasar prong. The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy the second or third 
Dhanasar prongs. See id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that her personal statements and copies of publications in the record 
that provide generalized information regarding education establish the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
"the specific endeavor that the [ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential 
prospective impact," looking for "broader implications." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or those with 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the Petitioner's references to publications in the record that provide generalized 
information regarding education are immaterial to whether the potential prospective impact of the 
specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have the type of broader implications 
indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. The 
publications in the record, including those referenced on appeal, that provide generalized information 
regarding education do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake, 
and how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake may have 
the type of "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or "significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically 
depressed area." Id. Because the publications that provide generalized information do not inform how 
the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national importance, they do not 
establish eligibility and we need not address them further. 
The Petitioner's plan to operate a consulting company appears to benefit the clients and customers 
who may use the Petitioner's company's services; however, the record does not establish how the 
potential prospective impact of the proposed endeavor will have the type of broader implications 
indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. For example, 
neither the Petitioner's statements nor the remainder of the record establish how the consulting 
company and the services it would provide may have national or even global implications, "such as 
those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances," within the field 
of education, academic consulting, business consulting, or any other particular field. See id. Neither 
3 
the Petitioner's statements nor the remainder of the record elaborate on how the "training for teachers 
and support staff of educational institutions, strengthening their skills and soft skills through personal 
and professional growth activities," that the Petitioner's company may provide differ from pedagogical 
training and business consultation services that other pedagogical instrnctors and business consultation 
services already provide to teachers and support staff in the United States. As another example, 
although the Petitioner identifies job categories for workers her company intends to employ, neither 
the Petitioner's statements nor the remainder of the record establish how employing some unspecified 
number of workers in those job categories may demonstrate "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
See id. We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar 
prong, and whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as required by the first Dhanasar 
prong. See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. As noted 
above, we also reserve our opinion regarding whether the record establishes the Petitioner is eligible 
for second-preference classification. See id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4