dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 31, 2024 In Re: 32505684 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an educator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. 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 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
• 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. 
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. 
Id.. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an educator who has focused on K-12 education. She holds a master's degree in 
education innovation and has worked as a bilingual educator. She has also completed curriculum 
planning, including translation and creation of STEM material, and she has reviewed educational data 
prepared for her school. 
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
not met the Dhanasar requirements for a waiver of a job offer and labor certification from a U.S. 
employer. Specifically, the Director concluded that while the record established that the proposed 
endeavor had substantial merit, the national importance of the endeavor had not been demonstrated 
under prong one. The Director also determined that the Petitioner was not well positioned to carry out 
the endeavor under prong two, and that the Petitioner had not shown that a waiver of the job offer 
2 
requirement would be beneficial as required by prong three. We agree the Petitioner has not 
established the national importance of the endeavor, as required under the first prong of Dhanasar. 
A. The Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Her Endeavor Has National Importance 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's decision impermissibly narrowed the scope of the 
proposed endeavor by treating the Petitioner as an educator who would only contribute directly to her 
school or to her students. However, the Petitioner notes that in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) she clarified that the proposed endeavor was to facilitate science, technology, 
engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) learning across 20 school districts. She also stresses that 
her role as a teacher on special assignment gives her responsibilities over a broad region. She further 
contends that progress had been made on her proposed endeavor as two school districts have purchased 
her curriculum with plans for further expansion. Overall, she highlights that she is an educator with a 
proven expertise in tailoring STEAM curriculum and ensuring access for students, and that this 
information was inadequately considered by the Director. 
In support of the endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner has submitted evidence including, but 
not limited to: an affidavit of intent; an expert opinion discussing her qualifications and eligibility for 
a national interest waiver; affidavits of support from employers and peers detailing her classroom 
teaching abilities; letters attesting to her work developing STEAM curricula as well as STEAM­
focused Spanish courses; and articles providing context and background on the national teacher 
shortage, national STEM initiatives, and the benefits of encouraging English proficiency. 
The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has a prospective potential impact rising 
to the level of national importance. The Petitioner contends that her endeavor should be understood 
as her intent to act as a facilitator for STEAM learning, initially across a specified geographical area, 
and eventually nationally. However, the Petitioner's initial filing contained a different proposed 
endeavor, indicating generally that she intended to continue her career as an educator. The Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is material to whether the endeavor is of national importance. See Matter ofMichelin 
Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. USCIS 
regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition 
that has already been filed to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! 
Comm'r 1971). 
The initial proposed endeavor did not include specifics such as facilitating STEAM learning across 20 
school districts. After review of the record, it appears that the current formulation of the endeavor 
could not have been proposed in the original filing; her currently-defined endeavor aligns with her 
work as a teacher on special assignment, which she began after this petition was submitted. The 
applicant's effort to expand her portfolio and further her expertise in STEAM curriculum creation is 
commendable, but it does not reflect the endeavor originally outlined in this petition. 
When considering the Petitioner's original endeavor, to continue to work in education, the national 
importance of this endeavor has not been established. The Petitioner highlights the importance of 
education to the nation, and stresses that good educators are in short supply. However, in Dhanasar, 
3 
we noted that the petitioner's activities in educating students would not be sufficient to give rise to a 
finding of national importance. Throughout the record, the Petitioner points to her background, 
education, and experience in her field. The Petitioner also provides several letters of support that 
discuss her knowledge and experience. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field, 
however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the foreign national." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is 
whether the specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 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's students may 
certainly find their education valuable; however, more is required for a national interest waiver. 
We are also unable to conclude that the other factors outlined in Dhanasar have been met in this case. 
Beyond generally asserting the economic benefits of well-educated students, the Petitioner has not 
argued that her proposed endeavor would have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [have] 
other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. 
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. We reserve opinion on whether the Petitioner could 
satisfy the second and third prongs to qualify for a national interest waiver. 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 did not otherwise meet 
their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that the proposed endeavor is of national importance. Because she has not 
met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that she has not established she is 
eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4