dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 26, 2023 In Re: 29381144 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an educational teacher and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 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 Petitioner established 
she was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, 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 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. 
The Petitioner intends to open an education center to assist children between the ages of Oand 5 with 
special needs, and to provide after school courses for children between the ages of 4 and 11 to assist 
with "educational and training requirements." The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed 
why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a brief which generally reiterates the benefits of her profession, her qualifications, 
and the claimed economic impacts of her proposed education center and contends that she has 
established the national importance of her proposed endeavor but does not provide any new evidence 
or arguments which overcome the Director 's determination. The Petitioner 's brief on appeal reads 
quite similarly to the letter she submitted with her response to the Director's notice of intent to deny. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar, including her 
submission of industry reports and articles relating to the shortage of teachers and the importance of 
education in the United States, her job experience and skills, and the economic impact of her ownership 
of a company located in Massachusetts. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her business rather than 
the importance of education, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration. 1 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." Id. at 889. 
Further, "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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did not sufficiently 
review all evidence. Specifically, she asserts the Director did not sufficiently consider her business 
plan, recommendation letters, industry reports and articles, and resume. However, in the decision, the 
Director discussed the Petitioner's qualifications and experience, as well as specifically referenced 
and analyzed the business plan, the recommendation letter, and industry reports and articles. Although 
the Petitioner states the Director did not consider the Petitioner's vast contributions in the field, she 
does not identify what these contributions are or how they affected the field. The record does not 
contain evidence suggesting the Petitioner's services are better, different, or cost less than those 
already available in the United States. The Petitioner does not explain what specific content the 
Director failed to consider or how the record contains evidence that overcomes the Director's analysis 
and findings. Therefore, we do not find support for the Petitioner's assertion that the Director applied 
a stricter standard of proof and did not properly review all evidence. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that her 
proposed endeavor, including operating her own business, sufficiently extends beyond her company 
and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate with national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. 
Here, the record does not show through supporting documentation how her specific education center 
stands 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. Furthermore, 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. Id. at 
890. The petition will remain denied. 
1 The Petitioner's contentions and submissions of industry articles and reports relates to the substantial merit of the 
proposed endeavor rather than the national importance. 
2 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 2 Further analysis of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3