dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 24, 2024 In Re: 31661877 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a qualitative researcher in the education field, 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 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 of Chawathe, 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 establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, as either a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree 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 an advanced degree professional 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. While neither 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 USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to "conduct qualitative research on trauma and its impact on 
students' academic performance and behavior in order to elucidate the underlying associations and 
develop novel and unique strategies for improving student performance." The Petitioner states that 
through this research, he will improve the security, well-being, and mental health of American 
children, allow students to feel safer in their learning environment, and make vulnerabilities in the 
school environment easier to detect and correct. 
The Director found that the Petitioner established that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an 
advanced degree professional, based upon the Petitioner's doctor of education degree. Regarding the 
Petitioner's request for a national interest waiver, the Director found that the Petitioner demonstrated 
the first Dhanasar prong-the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor­
but did not establish the second or third Dhanasar prongs-that he is well-positioned to advance the 
endeavor or that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has demonstrated his eligibility under the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs. Because, as we discuss below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor we need not reach the question of whether 
the Petitioner has established the first or 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 determining whether a petitioner is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor as required 
by Dhanasar's second prong, we consider factors including but not limited to: the individual's 
education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for 
future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential 
customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 890. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director, in determining that the Petitioner did not establish 
that he is well-positioned to advance the endeavor, did not fully examine the evidence in the record 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is 
discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director's decision contains a contradictory statement on this point. The decision contains both a statement that the 
Petitioner established the first prong but not the second prong, and a statement that the Petitioner established the second 
prong but not the national importance element of the first prong. Despite these contradicting summary statements, the 
Director's overall analysis is clear that the Director found that the record establishes the first prong, including national 
importance, but does not establish the second prong. 
2 
and did not consider the relevant factors under Dhanasar 's second prong. For example, the Petitioner 
notes that the decision does not analyze whether the Petitioner has a "model or plan for future 
activities," and does not discuss the Petitioner's personal statement and proposed endeavor statements. 
The Petitioner also asserts, among other things, that the Director placed too much emphasis on the 
Petitioner's citation record, imposed "novel legal standards," and improperly relied on our prior, now 
vacated, decision in Matter of New York State Dep 't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). 
We acknowledge that the Director's decision does not directly discuss every piece of evidence the 
Petitioner submitted and is brief in its analysis of the second Dhanasar prong. However, following 
review, we conclude that the decision is sufficient and specific enough to provide the Petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision 
must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity 
to challenge the determination on appeal). Moreover, we have conducted a de novo review and 
considered the evidence in the record in full. While we may not discuss each piece of evidence in the 
record in our decision, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
Turning to the factors enumerated in Matter of Dhanasar for evaluating evidence under the second 
prong, we first conclude that the evidence related to the Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and 
record of success in related or similar efforts does not weigh in favor of being well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. Although the Petitioner does have relevant education, including a 
doctorate in education, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that he has the skills and knowledge 
that would position him well to advance the proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner's 
curriculum vitae and work experience letter show that his experience is primarily as a teacher, lecturer, 
and course facilitator, with duties that include preparing training materials, delivering trainings, and 
administering courses. While this experience is in the education field, the record shows that the 
Petitioner has little experience as an academic researcher, and therefore does not demonstrate that he 
has developed the skills and knowledge necessary to be well-positioned to conduct qualitative research 
regarding the impact of mental health on student behavior and academic performance. Similarly, the 
evidence does not demonstrate a record of success in similar or related efforts. Specifically, the 
Petitioner submitted evidence of his publications and citation record that shows that he has published 
only five works and been cited only one time. Three of the Petitioner's works were published in a 
single year in a single academic journal, and the Petitioner provided no information about the prestige 
or impact of this journal in the field. Additionally, one of the publications does not appear to be related 
to the education field but to the field of performance management in human resources. Regarding the 
single citation that the Petitioner's work has received, the record does not show the context in which 
this citation was received, such as whether it was a self-citation. We conclude that the lack of a 
significant citation record, or other evidence of influential or successful work in the field, weighs 
against finding that the Petitioner has a record of success in related or similar efforts. 
We also conclude that the next factors applicable to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework-a 
model or plan for future activities and progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor---do not weigh 
in favor of the Petitioner being well-positioned to advance the endeavor. The Petitioner contends that his 
personal statement and proposed endeavor statement demonstrate these factors. The Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor statement describes the area of research he is interested in pursuing, his goal to be a 
3 
"change agent" to improve school environments, and that he intends to publish and present his research. 
Upon review of the Petitioner's statements, however, we conclude that they do not provide sufficient 
details, plans, or progress to be credible and persuasive regarding the Petitioner being well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner does not discuss funding of his research, any 
specific research projects which he is currently pursuing or conducting, or any other specific indications 
or details regarding his progress in the endeavor. By contrast, the petitioner in Matter ofDhanasar was 
working as a postdoctoral research associate at a university, was already performing research and 
development related to his proposed endeavor at this university, and intended to continue to do so. See 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891. We conclude that the Petitioner's general statements and lack 
of specifics weigh against demonstrating a model or plan for future activities and demonstrating progress 
toward the proposed endeavor, and that these factors therefore weigh against a finding that the Petitioner 
is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
The final factor enumerated in Matter ofDhanasar relates to the interest of potential customers, users, 
investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Here, we similarly conclude that the evidence in the 
record does not weigh in favor of demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the 
endeavor. The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal the letters of recommendation in the record and the letter 
of interest from a potential employer as evidence in support of this factor. However, we conclude that 
this evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate interest from potential customers, users, or other relevant 
entities. The letters of recommendation generally do not discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor, how he is well-positioned to advance it, or the writers' interest in the Petitioner's research. For 
example, one letter of recommendation, which is from a member of the Petitioner's dissertation 
committee, states that the Petitioner is "conscientious and diligent" and "did good work in a timely 
fashion." Although the letter contains the generic statement that the Petitioner "has the academic 
preparation and personal qualities that bode well" for his success in "new research projects," the letter 
writer does not describe interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or interest in the Petitioner 
pursuing the endeavor. The Petitioner also submitted a job offer letter from a professor at 
NJ. The writer of this letter speaks highly of the Petitioner and states the intent to 
offer the Petitioner a teaching and research position at the college. However, the letter is not sufficient 
to demonstrate the level of interest, as contemplated by Matter of Dhanasar, that would support a 
finding of being well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. For instance, the record does not 
contain evidence of research funding, grants, or other investments in the Petitioner pursuing the 
proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we concluded that there was interest from relevant entities in part 
because the petitioner had received consistent government funding of research projects in which he 
played a significant role, specifically that he initiated or was the primary award contact on several 
funded grant proposals and was the only listed researcher on many of the grants. Id. at 893, Fn. 11. 
The evidence in the record does not include any similar evidence of funding, from government or non­
government sources, that would reflect interest in the Petitioner's work. 
Not every individual who has relevant education, who has completed a dissertation in the field, and who 
has conducted some original research will be found to be well-positioned to advance their proposed 
endeavor. Rather, we must examine the factors set forth in Matter ofDhanasar to determine whether, for 
instance, the individual's education, skills, and record of success, their model or plan for future activities, 
their progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and the generation of interest among relevant 
parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. In considering the record in totality-including that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated a significant publication history, has not provided evidence of influential 
4 
research in the field, and has not submitted evidence of previous funding for his research-we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not established that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, as required by the second Dhanasar prong, we need not address whether the Petitioner has 
established the first or third prong of the Dhanasar framework. We acknowledge the Petitioner's 
arguments on appeal as to the third prong but, having found that the evidence does not establish that 
the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we will not address those 
arguments here. 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 alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5