dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 25, 2023 In Re: 28446246 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, ateacher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 
as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an individual of exceptional ability, 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish: 
(1) the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification; (2) the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor; (3) the Petitioner is well positioned to carry out his endeavor; or (4) it would be in the United 
States' interest to waive the requirement of a job offer and labor certification. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. 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, they must then establish 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 l&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 discretion1, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. We 
withdraw that finding but nevertheless acknowledge the Director's concerns about the quality and 
nature of the evidence.2 By a preponderance of the evidence standard, the Petitioner has established 
eligibility as the equivalent of an advanced degree professional. Therefore, the remaining issue is 
whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 3 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor the 
individual proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in arange 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner intends work "as an educator specialized in but not limited to teaching minorities and 
communities in need on a variety of themes, promoting cultural and social exchange." The Petitioner 
"will not only act as a teacher but also as a consultant and lecturer, actively influencing the formation 
of a socio-environmental consciousness in America following the government's plans outlined by the 
Biden-Harris administration." Specifically, he plans to raise awareness of environmental conservation 
and climate change through the education of children and adolescents, as well as by promoting related 
lectures and events. He intends to carry out his proposed endeavor by: 
• "Promoting initiatives to allow minority students to bridge the education gap existing in those 
populations;" 
• Working to keep native traditions alive while teaching; 
• Developing creative teaching methods with scarce resources; and 
• Disseminating knowledge through professional events. 
Regarding the national importance portion of Dhanasar 's first prong, the Petitioner referenced the 
shortage of qualified teachers, especially those equipped to teach in traditionally underserved 
communities. Additionally, he mentioned the drop in attendance and engagement in education due to 
the coronavirus pandemic, explaining that his teaching methods will boost student enrollment and 
2 In any future filings, the Petitioner should be prepared to address the Director's evidentiary concerns. 
3 When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973,976 
(1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 
F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
2 
interest in learning science. Regarding the Biden-Harris administration's commitment to confronting 
global climate change, the Petitioner emphasized that his instruction of students in biological sciences 
will create a positive environmental and social impact due to his students' heightened awareness of 
ecology and conservation. As such, he believes his endeavor impacts a matter that is the subject of 
national initiatives. To reinforce his assertions, the Petitioner provided background information and 
statistics related to the importance of education and science specifically. 
We agree with the Director that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
evidence is insufficient to establish its national importance. We acknowledge the shortage of qualified 
teachers, along with the lack of resources and systemic challenges in educating traditionally 
underserved populations; however, the Petitioner has not suggested that his endeavor as a teacher 
would meaningfully reduce the teacher shortage. As the Director explained, an occupational shortage 
does not necessarily establish that the proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field or 
otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance. Occupational shortages are 
specifically addressed through the labor certification process. While ongoing educational challenges 
result from the coronavirus pandemic, we nevertheless conclude the Petitioner has not provided 
evidence sufficient to establish how his proposed endeavor would operate to address these challenges 
at a level commensurate with national importance. 
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." Id. at 889. We do not question the importance of combatting 
climate change, educating students in science, ecology, and conservation, or of raising environmental 
awareness. However, the importance of these fields, and of education and teaching in general, is not 
necessarily sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how his specific proposed 
endeavor will produce an impact broad enough to enhance societal welfare or affect the science or 
education fields as a whole. 
Documents in the record, such as the recommendation letters, advisory opinion, attorney letter, and 
professional plan, reference the Petitioner's "innovative techniques," "dynamic strategies," "flashcard 
methodologies," "advanced teaching techniques," "non-traditional approaches," and intention to 
develop "engaging new means of sharing information." However, the Petitioner has not supported 
these characterizations with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Although the record includes 
his proposed endeavor activities and services, there is little explanation of any innovative solutions 
the Petitioner developed or any demonstration of how his strategies and techniques are non-traditional, 
advanced, or dynamic. Simply using basic instructional methods in the context of teaching specific 
indigenous communities is not indicative of an impact to the education or science fields overall, nor 
does it launch basic methods into the realm of non-traditional, advanced, or dynamic. 
The Petitioner focused on his involvement in obtaining Didactic Mobile Laboratories/Mobile Dynamic 
Laboratories (LDM) for students at his school and how the availability and use of these laboratories 
engaged students in new ways and provided underfunded schools with new instructional methods, 
thereby revolutionizing the education system. In support, the Petitioner provided work product 
examples, such as apresentation slide deck about LDMs. The school's principal,! Inamed 
the Petitioner as the reason that several other schools obtained LDM units through government 
3 
funding. She also credited the Petitioner for obtaining the laboratories for their school, resulting in 
improved student learning and interest in a variety of subjects. Nonetheless, the evidence provided 
does not describe the Petitioner's specific role in obtaining the funding for the LDMs at his or other 
schools, nor does the evidence demonstrate that the Petitioner created the LDMs or the idea of LDMs. 
Furthermore, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner "revolutionized" the education 
or science fields as a result of the LDMs. At most, the record suggests the Petitioner "stumbled upon" 
the idea to use LDMs at his school, which served as an impetus for LDM usage in his municipality. 
We cannot conclude that initiating the use of LDMs or obtaining funding for them in his municipality 
constitutes an innovative technique, nor does it substantiate a finding that his proposed endeavor would 
have a broad impact in the science or education fields. 
The record demonstrates the Petitioner may have successfully used flashcards in teaching indigenous 
populations in Brazil. Although documents in the record mention the Petitioner's "flashcard 
methodologies," there is little explanation of what the methodology is or how it functions. The 
Petitioner does not assert that he invented flashcards or the concept of them, nor does he suggest he is 
the first to use them as a teaching method. Based on the evidence provided, we cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner has any particular flashcard methodology or that his use of flashcards has broadly 
impacted the education or science fields such that it would support a finding that the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner highlighted his past achievements to illustrate how his proposed endeavor might 
achieve a similar impact. He provided recommendation letters from colleagues who offer praise of 
the Petitioner's personal and professional qualities but do not demonstrate detailed knowledge of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. We examined the letters initially submitted and the updated letters 
submitted in the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Although the 
authors highlight the Petitioner's past achievements, there is little indication from the letters that his 
achievements impacted the field of education or science. Documentation states that, as a result of the 
Petitioner's teaching projects, certain indigenous people obtained jobs, earned an income, and engaged 
in conservation practices. However, such examples of past success do not contain sufficient detail to 
substantiate a finding of impact beyond the specific individuals and communities he served. 
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 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"). Although the authors state the Petitioner contributed to the success 
of various projects, they do not corroborate their claims with specific facts or supporting details, nor 
do they explain how these projects are indicative of a larger impact in the field. 
The Petitioner provided an advisory opinion from evaluatorL..l________ ..------------1
I Iin the portion of the opinion that addresses national importance,I,________, 
provides facts and statistics about the education services industry and highlights the importance of 
education in mental and physical health, as well as its impact on the economy. While we agree with 
I I that education is important, the opinion letter is of limited probative value, as it contains 
little analysis of the specific proposed endeavor or its impact. 
4 
The record contains documentation, such as government press releases about projects involving 
indigenous populations; an announcement of a book about plants and animals; historical background 
on various indigenous populations in Brazil; articles about educational initiatives for indigenous 
people; government funding for those initiatives; and a letter from indigenous leaders to the 
government. As the Director noted, the evidence does not mention the Petitioner or credit him with 
the work required to produce these materials. Rather, the material references the people of the 
indigenous groups featured in the article, report, or book. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence and assertions he previously provided, which we 
addressed above. As explained, the documentation does not establish the national importance of the 
proposed endeavor. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under the first Dhanasar 
prong. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose.4 
111. CONCLUSION 
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. 
4 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 Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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). 
5