dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 20, 2024 In Re: 31381516 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an educational specialist and consultant, seeks classification as an advanced degree 
professional. 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. 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, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement is 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 of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, the petitioner must then establish eligibility for a 
discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of 
the Act. Neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Rather, 
Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating 
national interest waiver petitions . Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
the Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor; and, (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional and that the 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor or the second or third prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate an educational 
consultancy business in Florida, focusing on teacher certifications and trainings to improve 
educational processes and outcomes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she has demonstrated her eligibility under each of the three 
Dhanasar prongs. Because, as we discuss below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor, we need not reach the question of whether she has 
established the second and third Dhanasar prongs and we reserve our opinion regarding 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). 
In appealing the Director's findings regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner claims that the Director incorrectly stated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work 
as an educator. The Petitioner contends that the proposed endeavor is not simply to be an educator 
but to establish a consulting business that provides teacher trainings and certifications and helps 
improve educational programs. Additionally, the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal the importance of 
education, the shortage of qualified teachers in the United States and particularly in Florida, and the 
Petitioner's plans and goals related to her consultancy business. 
In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. An endeavor that has national or global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances, may have national importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is 
regionally focused may nevertheless have national importance, such as an endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
Upon review of the record, we do not find support for the Petitioner's contention that the Director 
mischaracterized the proposed endeavor. Rather, the decision quotes describes the Petitioner's 
intention to work as an independent expert and consultant who will provide consultancy services 
relating to optimizing educational processes, improving the efficiency and quality of educational 
programs, and training teachers. Additionally, we agree with the Director that record does not 
establish the proposed endeavor's national importance. In support of the endeavor's national 
importance, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of education and the problem of teacher 
shortages in the United States. But 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." 
Id. at 889. The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor-to 
establish a consultancy business-has the potential to impact the issue of teacher shortages or improve 
2 
the educational system at a level commensurate with national importance. The record also lacks 
sufficient evidence to establish the claimed positive economic benefits of the proposed endeavor. 
Although the Director noted these deficiencies in the decision, on appeal the Petitioner repeats the 
same claims presented to the Director about the importance of education, the issue of teacher shortages 
in the United States, and the impact that her business's services will have on its clients. The Petitioner 
does not address or attempt to overcome the findings of the Director that these claims do not establish 
the importance of the specific, proposed endeavor. Moreover, the Petitioner does not identify any 
other specific legal or factual errors in the Director's findings that the Petitioner did not establish the 
national importance of the endeavor. 
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 second and third Dhanasar prongs 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 prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (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 the applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3