dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 12, 2024 In Re: 29337599 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dual language educator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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. 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 that the record did not 
establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. 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 ofthe 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 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. 1 Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is then required to establish 
that the petitioner merits 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
1 The record establishes that the Petitioner qualifies as an EB-2 advanced degree professional because she is a memberof 
the professions holding a U.S. advanced degree in her field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) , (3)(i); section 101 (a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(32) (defining a "profession" as, amongotheroccupations, teachers in elementary orsecondaiy schools). 
interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial me1it 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. For example, an endeavor may qualify if it has national 
implications within a particular field, such as certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances, or if it has significant potential to have a substantial economic effect, especially in an 
economically depressed area. Id. 
The Director concluded that while the Petitioner's endeavor as a dual-language educator has 
substantial merit, the record did not establish that the endeavor's impact would rise to the level of 
national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully consider the 
provided evidence. Upon review, the Petitioner has not established what prospective impact her 
endeavor will have that will rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, as in her underlying petition, the Petitioner relies on the importance of the field ofbilingual 
education to establish the importance of her endeavor, providing extensive documentation of the 
field's benefits and prominence in U.S. education policy. However, when determining whether a 
proposed endeavor would have national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, but what specific impact will be attributable to 
that proposed endeavor. Id.; see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
In Dhanasar, the noncitizen's teaching act1v1tles in science, technology, engineering, and math 
(STEM) disciplines were found to have substantial merit, but did not qualify him under the first prong 
because the evidence did not show how that work would impact the field of STEM education more 
broadly. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the record here does not contain 
sufficient information to establish what impact the Petitioner's work will have beyond her immediate 
professional circle. 
The Petitioner is currently employed in the United States as a dual language Spanish educator while 
working on her doctoral dissertation in the field of education. According to her strategic professional 
plan, she will be "offe1ing customized consulting, coaching, and perf mmance monitming services 
across the United States," "working as a formal doctor in education [by] producing and conducting 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionaty in nature). 
2 
miginal research," pe1forming "in-person v1s1ts, viitual tours, speaking engagements, webinars, 
professional learning, and workshops with schools and organizations," and "developing educational 
content on websites, social media, podcasts, infographics, videos, books, guides, and biogs" to 
promote and improve bilingual education in the United States. 
The professional plan and the remainder of the evidence do not specify how the Petitioner will divide 
her time between their vaiious listed occupations, such as consulting, researching, and teaching. The 
only evidence provided regarding the Petitioner's potential employment consists of various job and 
interview offers for positions as a bilingual grade school teacher. It is therefore not apparent from the 
evidence provided in what capacity she would conduct scholarly research, act as a consultant, or 
perform the other activities described in the professional plan. 
Fmthe1more, the record does not quantify or specify any particular impact the desc1ibed activities 
would have. For example, while the Petitioner states that she "will engage in training dual-language 
and English teachers across the U.S. to effectively meet the needs of culturally diverse students," she 
does not document where and how she will do so, such as how many teachers she will instruct, or what 
specifically she will train these teachers in. 
We acknowledge the many provided recommendation letters from the Petitioner's coworkers and 
experts in the field which state that the Petitioner's professional plan establishes the impact her 
endeavor will have. However, while we may, in our discretion, use expert opinion letters submitted 
by the Petitioner as advismy opinions, we are ultimately responsible for dete1mining eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Matter ofCaron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 792 (Comm'r 1988). Where an opinion 
letter is not in accord with other information in the record or is in any way questionable, we are not 
requil-ed to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Id. 
In this case, the letters state the theoretical merits of the activities described in the professional plan, 
but provide no specific information about how or where the Petitioner's work will impact her field or 
what that impact would be. For example, the letter from Professor C-F-F- states thatthe endeavor will 
be "addressing the shortage of qualified teachers," without quantifying how many more teachers will 
be qualified as a result of the Petitioner's work or when or where this will occur. When assessing 
national importance, we look for an endeavor's broader implications. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889-90. Without specific information about that endeavor's nature, we cannot find it will have 
the kinds of expansive effects contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. Because the provided opinion letters 
do not provide relevant information regarding the Petitioner's proposed activities, we will grant those 
letters limited evidentiary weight in these proceedings. Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 
791. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that "the tasks outlined in the Strategic Professional Plan were not 
thoroughly reviewed," but provides no example of a fact that was overlooked or any specific impact 
of her endeavor which the Director failed to acknowledge. Instead, she states that her plan has 
"significant implications for the field of dual language education on a large scale and [is] not specific 
to any particular site, center, client, individual, entity, or school." However, this lack of specificity 
does not support the Petitioner's case. While a petition for a national interest waiver does not require 
a job offer, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide relevant, probative, and credible evidence 
demonstrating that her endeavor has significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or 
3 
cultural or artistic enrichment, contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of 
study, or otherwise rise to the level of national importance. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
375-76 (describing the preponderance of the evidence standard used in these proceedings); see 
generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(l). Here, the Petitioner has not detailed, 
quantified, or documented where, when or how she will perform the many activities named in her 
professional plan, and has provided no information about what effects will be attributable to those 
activities beyond a general contiibution to a meritmious area of endeavor. She has not met her burden 
of proof by providing documentation of how her endeavor's effects will extend beyond her classroom 
and immediate professional circle to rise to the level of national importance. Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. As such, she has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar test. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under the first prong oftheDhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the other two prongs and hereby reserve those issues. 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 ofL-A-C-, 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant did not othe1wise meet their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4