dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 15, 2023 In Re: 28282420 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an educational consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification or for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
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 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; 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we do not discuss each 
piece of evidence, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The first 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for 
the 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 determined in Dhanasar that 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. 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. 
The Petitioner stated that with her "diverse professional range of experiences in teaching and early 
child education, my intention and goals in the United States of America is to play a key role as a 
consultant in development of research in early childhood education which would support persons 
dealing with special needs." The Petitioner provided several articles to support the claim of a teacher 
labor shortage in Illinois and in Florida. In addition, she stated that her research endeavors have 
focused on the study of young children from ages zero to seven years old and she plans to work "more 
extensively and consult on studies and research aimed at ensuring provision of quality educational 
services to children with special needs." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further explained her proposed 
endeavor as "providing and advancing efficient early intervention educational services to young and 
special children ( ages zero to seven years old) as an education consultant, by working extensively on 
studies and services aimed at ensuring provision of quality educational services to children with 
special needs and with specific target at low-income communities." The Petitioner briefly described 
the importance of education in our society and the importance of providing special education to 
children with special needs. 
While the Director determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, he concluded that the 
record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proposed endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range 
of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health and education, and 
evidence that the endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable 
but is not required. The Petitioner further repeats her assertions of a teacher shortage in the United 
Sates, and the importance of providing special education in the United States. 
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. The Petitioner must 
demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing early intervention 
educational services through her specific endeavor rather than the importance of special education or 
the education industry or field. 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. 
In addition, the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes her experience, skills, and knowledge. The 
Petitioner's experience and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. 
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. The 
Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her assertions that the 
prospective impact of working as an educational consultant rises to the level of national importance. 
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. Here, the 
record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific educational consulting 
services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her prospective students to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to establish how the implications of her proposed endeavor to provide 
educational consulting services rises to the level of national importance. The record here includes 
support letters written on the Petitioner's behalf by her coworkers and graduate school instructors. 
These letters speak highly of the Petitioner's skill, knowledge, and dedication, and illustrate the impact 
she has had on her students and as part of her graduate program. However, the support letters and the 
rest of the record do not document any impact the Petitioner has had or will have on the broader field 
of special education beyond her immediate professional circle. 
Further, 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 
for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
directly attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial 
3 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's appeal also reiterates her claim that her endeavor is nationally important due to the 
shortage of teachers in Illinois and Florida and provides materials documenting the need for more 
workers in this field. However, she has not established how her individual special education teaching 
activities will resolve this shortage or impact it on a level rising to national importance. 3 
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. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the third prong of Dhanasar but, having found that the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as to national importance, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record establishes the remaining Dhanasar prong. 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 of L-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We further note that the Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification 
process. Therefore. a shortage of qualified workers in an occupation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that 
workers in that occupation should receive a waiver of the job offer requirement. See Matter ofDlzanasar. 26 l&N Dec. at 
885; see also 20 C.F.R. § 656.1. 
4