dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 09, 2024 In Re: 31672571 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an anti-bullying educator, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The Director denied the subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, 
determining that the evidence did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen and reconsider . 
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 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 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 I&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, Third and D.C. Circuit Courts 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is a pedagogical intervention project aiming to, "analyze, detect, 
treat and raise awareness about the continu[ing] prevention of bullying." Further, "the program will 
design and apply intervention techniques to eventually cause a reduction in physical and online 
violence, a decrease in psychological problems, and improvement in organizational behavior." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analysis, 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. As it relates to substantial 
merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined, and we agree, that the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not 
the national importance, of the proposed endeavor. 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 submitted numerous articles such as "The Problem of Bullying in 
Schools" and "Consequences of Bullying" to establish the gravity of bullying. However, the matter 
here is not whether bullying is a nationally important problem. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of providing her services as an anti­
bullying specialist through her pedagogical intervention project in Florida. She asserts her program 
plan provides corroboration for the methodology and schedule of the project. This program plan lacks 
detail as to how the Petitioner will be able to enter public schools across Florida to train and present 
the project, for example, and then presumably expand the project to create a national impact. Here, 
the record does not contain specific and thorough information regarding the national influence of the 
project. 
On appeal the Petitioner contends the Director erred in comparing the Petitioner's endeavor to 
Dhanasar 's teaching activities because she asserts the proposed endeavor is to apply a pedagogical 
intervention project as a resource to eliminate bullying and not work solely as a teacher. However, 
the Petitioner misinterprets this issue. The concern is the endeavor's influence, not whether the 
Petitioner is working as a teacher or providing an intervention project. The Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her intervention project would largely influence the field and rise to the level of 
national importance. The evidence does not show through supporting documentation that the endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond her prospective schools to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
2 
The Petitioner's contention that bullying affects everyone, and that the solution, the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor will benefit everyone, is also misplaced. The Petitioner does not provide support 
for these assertions and continues to rely on the importance of the benefits of reducing bullying in 
general and asserts that the pedagogical intervention will positively impact the economy. However, 
as previously discussed, 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. 
Further, the Petitioner's expert opm10n letters and letters of recommendation do not satisfy 
Dhanasar 's national importance prong. While the expert opinion letter from Dr. I I 
expounds on the potential benefits of the proposed intervention program, it does not explain how it 
would have broader implications for our country or how the program would expand. In regard to the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, Dr. I I states that due to, "her track record of record of success 
in education, I am sure she will be asked to present at lectures, congresses and seminars," without 
providing particulars about how the program would reach those audiences. The letter repeats the same 
arguments addressed above pertaining to the importance of anti-bullying program without 
corroborating details to explain the program's implementation or national reach. 
Similarly, the letters of recommendation address the Petitioner's skills in developing ideas and 
activities for the children she teaches and detail her excellent rapport with children, the letters do not 
show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work, and are limited to her specific students and schools. 
Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and relate more to the 
second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
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 met the 
requisite first prong ofthe 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. 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 l&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). 
3