dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23116767 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 14, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a chief academic officer, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 
as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying 
classification and that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit. Nevertheless, the Director denied 
the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor, that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts his eligibility, arguing that the Director 
did not review each piece of evidence properly and erred in the decision. In these proceedings, it is 
the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l{a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he is a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner 
has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. While we 
may not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner described himself as an expert in on line education programming. He owns and operates 
________________ a Florida-based business, for which he serves as 
the Chief Academic Officer (CAO). His duties as CAO ofl I include serving as "the leader, 
spokesperson, and resident expert on curriculum, instruction, pedagogy, and learning." He also 
provides! lwith long-term instructional vision and "work[s] to establish a culture of high 
expectation[s] and shared responsibility for equitable access to high quality and culturally relevant 
instruction." He hopes to continue to create effective partnerships with diverse U.S. university 
professors as well as lifetime researchers and publishers. The Petitioner stated that he will advise 
I I on various subjects dealing with effective planning, transformation, and management of 
digital education content to be delivered through I I proprietary Leaming Management 
System (LMS) platform. The Petitioner will use "state-of-the-art technologies" to meet the market 
needs of his company. I lwill provide learners with remodeled digital content from relevant 
publishers in accordance with the latest professional standards and trends. 
In our de nova review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified a 
specific proposed endeavor. The record reflects several different roles within the proposed endeavor, 
and it is not apparent from the information provided if the Petitioner intends to work in some or all of 
the positions he describes. While serving as CAO ofl I the record reflects that the Petitioner 
also serves as a faculty member of I Universit where he teaches classes and 
reviews dissertations. In addition, he works for a company that conducts yearly 
conferences, targeting businesses and students in _ Brazil and I I Florida. It also appears 
that the Petitioner intends to continue running his Brazilian-based business.I I 
3 
I Finally, the Petitioner provided evidence that I 
an entrepreneur within the digital education and distance learning field, 
intends to establish a new U.S. university and hire the Petitioner as the CAO of it. 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. Based on the evidence provided, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not sufficiently identified a specific endeavor, nor has he explained how he will 
manage his time if he intends to pursue multiple positions. In determining whether an individual 
qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the specific proposed endeavor to determine 
whether it has both substantial merit and national importance. Here, the Petitioner has not provided a 
specific proposed endeavor and the lack of specificity impedes a conclusion that his proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
Regarding the new job offer, ______ expressed his intention to hire the Petitioner as 
CAO in a letter dated October 2021. As the Petitioner filed the instant 1-140 petition in December 
2019, this new job offer post-dates the filing of the Petition. USCIS regulations affirmatively require 
a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit he seeks at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Therefore, if the Petitioner intends for USCIS to consider this 
position as part of his proposed endeavor, he must file a new petition with evidence to support his 
eligibility under a new set of facts. 
B. National Importance 
Regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that education 
broadly enhances societal welfare and cultural enrichment. He also stated that education is a matter 
the government has described as having national importance and is the subject of national initiatives. 
In his business plan, the Petitioner emphasized that his proposed endeavor involves hiring and training 
internal staff and external industry contractors, providing discounted low-end market prices for 
courses and programs, as well as positively impacting the U.S. economy through net profit, payroll 
expenses, and tax revenue. In addition to employing five internal employees and four contracted 
employees, the Petitioner provided growth projections for the next five years, which include $150,873 
in revenue and $323,325 in payroll expenses by 2024. In further support of the national importance 
of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner noted his past success in providing education programming, 
including that he fostered the exchange of ideas and information among businesses and countries, such 
as Brazil, the United States, and Finland. He also claimed that as a result of the professional 
relationships and business ventures he cultivated, he promoted the purchase of commercial and 
residential property in Florida. 
The Director issued the Petitioner a request for evidence (RFE), which informed the Petitioner that, 
among other deficiencies, the evidence did not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. After considering the evidence the Petitioner provided in his RFE response, the Director 
explained that: 
4 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor 
is of national importance ... [, and] failed to supplement the record with evidence that 
would establish how his online educational business would prospectively translate into 
benefits that would extend beyond his immediate projected business to have national 
benefits .... [The evidence] also does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor 
offers benefits which would extend beyond the Petitioner's company and clientele to 
impact the online educational industry more broadly at a regional or national level. The 
record failed to establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would prospectively 
have any national impact on U.S. national online educational markets .... 
The Director acknowledged the sales forecasts for I I but determined that the growth potential 
for the company did not demonstrate that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's business would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. The Director explained that: 
The Petitioner has not offered evidence that the area in which the company wi II operate 
is economically depressed, that the company would use a significant population of 
workers in that area, or that the endeavor would offer the region or its population a 
substantial economic benefit through employment levels or business activity. Nor does 
the plan demonstrate that any increases in employment or investment attributable to the 
company's operations stand to substantially affect economic activity or tax revenue in 
Florida or nationally .... 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner described his past success in providing 
education programming, generating the exchange of ideas and information among businesses and 
countries, and promoting the purchase of commercial and residential property in Florida, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. For instance, the 
Petitioner has not provided independent and objective evidence of increased property sales in Florida 
attributable to his work, nor has provided specific and detailed examples of how the exchange of ideas 
and information has impacted businesses and students. Moreover, it is not apparent how affecting 
businesses and students that engage him for his services represents an impact rising to the level of 
national importance. 
To support his claims concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner 
relied heavily upon the importance of the education field. He provided articles and reports concerning 
governmental initiatives to promote education, as well as reference materials concerning the 
importance and expansion of online learning. In addition, he stated that his field will support programs 
that impact national initiatives. However, as the Director explained, "the Petitioner cannot simply 
infer the prospective national importance of the proposed endeavor from the field of 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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. We acknowledge that 
the field of education, including online education, is important; however, this is not necessarily 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
5 
Additionally, we agree that education broadly enhances societal welfare. Nevertheless, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established how his specific proposed endeavor will be available on a scale that 
rises to the level of broad enhancement to societal welfare. The record suggests that the Petitioner 
runs a private company with private technology and offers services to those who enrol 1, but it does not 
appear as though the Petitioner provides these services to the public or educational institutions at large. 
To illustrate, the Petitioner uses a proprietary LMS platform and "state-of-the-art technologies," 
neither of which appear to be available to all educational institutions and all students nationwide. 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. Similarly, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that his proposed endeavor activities will 
broadly impact the field of education or the nation overall. 
The Petitioner does not claim that he was the first to develop online and distance learning capabilities, 
such that he has impacted the field of education as a whole. Nor does the record support a finding that 
he has impacted the narrower field of online education. As explained, the Petitioner uses proprietary 
systems that are presumably not available to others in the field. As such, it cannot be concluded from 
the evidence provided that he or his business has impacted the field of online education. Further, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail concerning what his "state-of-the-art technologies" are. It 
is not apparent how other educators and distance learning providers would know about or have access 
to these technologies to improve their own online learning capabilities. Accordingly, the evidence 
does not suggest that the Petitioner's business would impact his field as a whole, as opposed to 
impacting only the entities or individuals that purchase his company's services. 
In other parts of the record, the Petitioner also emphasized that his services impacted students and 
businesses in Brazil. For instance, he described howl has been a great success in Brazil.1 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Petitioner's services would be 
considered of national importance to the United States. Similarly, the Petitioner emphasized how his 
services boosted enrollment in and a sister university in Brazil; however, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how improving enrollment for a private university in the United States rises to 
the level of national importance. 
In support of his eligibility, the Petitioner provided an advisory opinion letter from _____ 
a professor of finance at I I University. I I offered his opinion on the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. Regarding the national importance portion of 
the opinion, I I described how the Petitioner's business will co-produce and facilitate 
academically distinguished online educational concepts and value-added programs of higher learning 
throughout Brazil with the goal of meeting the market's increasing interest and demand for advanced 
U.S.-standardized digital learning content. However, I I has not demonstrated how the 
proposed endeavor's impact in Brazil translates to benefits or positive impacts for the United States. 
discussed statistics concerning online education, which supports a finding that the 
education industry is indeed important. However, as previously explained, the Petitioner must 
establish how the proposed endeavor is of national importance rather than relying upon the importance 
1 As previously explained, it is not apparent from the record whether ___ is part of the proposed endeavor. 
6 
of the field. In addition, !described how the Petitioner's skills, experience, and education 
are extremely valuable and will benefit the United States overall. However, the Petitioner's expertise 
and qualifications relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from 
the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first 
prong. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, I opinion does not sufficiently address the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. Rather, it primarily discusses the importance of the 
on line education field and the expertise of the Petitioner. 
In the numerous letters of support, colleagues and professional acquaintances praised the Petitioner's 
personal and professional qualities, as well as emphasized how he performed well in his positions. 
The authors of the letters described how the Petitioner's work, including lectures regarding his book 
and finance, impacted their companies and clients. However, even if the events the authors described 
were well attended, this would not sufficiently support a finding that the Petitioner impacted the nation 
or the field of education as a whole. For instance, explained how the Petitioner 
provided a financial coaching lecture in the city of in Ja an. I !observed that 
more than 25 thousand foreign language speakers live in and that the Petitioner directly 
or indirectly affected them with his teaching. I ldoes not offer corroborative evidence to 
support the statistic thatl lhas 25 thousand foreign language speakers, nor does she explain 
how the Petitioner's teaching either directly or indirectly affected the entire city's population of foreign 
language speakers . 
_______ the Chief Executive Officer ofl I provided information on the 
Petitioner's role as host and educator at nine different I conferences from 2010 to 2018. 
He described the topics discussed at each conference and noted that the conferences had numerous 
renowned speakers and 5,000 paid attendees. However, likel I.I I does not 
provide corroborative evidence to support his claims. Even if he had provided such evidence, it would 
still be unclear how the Petitioner's specific work within these conferences represents an impact to the 
field of education or to the nation as a whole.2 
Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an 
agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). The submission 
of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
2 Additionally, some of the events described in the letters of support occurred after the filing date of the petition. Such 
events do not sufficiently support a finding of eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong at the time of filing. As explained 
previously, USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit it is seeking at the 
time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N 
Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
7 
evaluate the content of those letters to determine whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Here, the letters of support are of limited 
probative value as the authors do not sufficiently substantiate their conclusions with corroborative 
evidence, nor would such evidence, even if provided, demonstrate the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor to the United States. Rather, such evidence would support a finding of impact to 
Brazil or the specific individuals and businesses that utilized the Petitioner's services. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references "unique business strategies;" however, he does not explain what 
these strategies are, how they are unique, or how the field of education or online education would be 
impacted as a result of them. To the extent that these unique strategies exist, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence of how others would be able to utilize or benefit from them apart from 
contracting with or enrolling inl I 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner references the updated policy guidance on national interest waiver 
petitions. We are aware of the policy and have applied it in review of this petition. In addition to the 
specific guidance the Petitioner references on appeal, we note that the policy guidance also states that 
"[cc ]laims lacking corroborating evidence are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof." 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5D4, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. We acknowledge the 
Petitioner's experience and qualifications, as well as his intention to provide valuable services in the 
online education field. However, as we explained above, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient 
evidence and explanation to support a finding that the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner has not done so here. Therefore, he 
is not eligible for the benefit sought. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in the record does not establish a specific proposed endeavor, nor does it establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar 
would serve no meaningful purpose. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning 
eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8