dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 21105865 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 16, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a postsecondary education administrator, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job off er 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief 
asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
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. 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. 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. ... the 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. 
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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasarstates that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the 
noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
noncitizen 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 off er and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
non citizen proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range 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 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 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. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor ce1iification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the non citizen's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor ce1iification process. In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacatedourp1iorprecedent decision,MattcrofNew York State Dep't of Transp., 
22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
indicate 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job off er is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to continue workin in the United States as 
a [p ]ostsecondary [ e ]ducation [ a ]dministrator." She asse1ied that a company 
she founded, purchased an uns ecified level of interest in a limited liability 
compan which is owned b a holding company, which in tum also 
owns ____________ an English-as-a-second-language learning 
facility. 
The 
Petitioner also asserted that, through her company, she "will keep working with directing and 
coordinating the activities of learning institutions to meet and adapt to the growing demands in the 
United States' educational service industry, thus advancing the Trump administration's eff01is to 
encourage a more open education market." The Petitioner further asserted that she will "help to 
generate U.S. tax revenue and create American jobs by investing to expand" I 
I I 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a document titled, 
"Business Plan: EB-2 NIW Supp01iingDocumentation," dated May 2021, afterthepetition filing date 
in April 2020. 3 The business plan asserts, in relevant part, that"[ the Petitioner's] clients will benefit 
through increased productivity, efficiency, and higher profits, which will reflect positively on the 
overall U.S. economy," and that "[b]y the end of Year 5, the [c]ompany will have a total of 14 
employees, thereby stimulating the U.S. economy by creating new jobs and increasing the amount of 
payroll taxes paid." The business plan further asserts, "The total indirect jobs to be generated in the 
same period would reach 29, according to the multipliers provided by the [Economic Policy Institute]." 
In the decision, the Director concluded the record does not establish that the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, observing that the proposed endeavor "has the potential to benefit the prospective 
school or institution of higher learning that she may work and provide benefits to the students whom 
she may serve. However, the totality of evidence does not establish the national importance of the 
[P]etitioner' s proposed endeavor." The Director also noted that, despite submitting "a business plan 
with projections of 14 employees by the end of year 5, and payroll expenses totaling$ 766,394 at that 
time, [ the Petitioner] has not shown that these projections represents substantial economic effects as 
contemplated by Dhanasar." The Director further concluded that "the evidence is insufficient to 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 A petitionermust establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(1 ). A petition may not 
be a pproveda ta future date after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45 (Reg. Comm'r 1971 ). 
3 
establish thatthe [P]etitioner' s proposed endeavor otherwise stands to have broader implications rising 
to the level of having national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses her qualifications and prior career accomplishments. She also 
references "[i]ndustry [r]eports and [a]rticles, which discuss the important role that education 
administrators play in the heart and foundation of America's future-a solid education and a well­
prepared workforce." She further asse1is that the proposed endeavor "impacts nationally impmiant 
matters, and the national economy, specifically" by: 
• Offering effective administration and operations support to education 
institutions, especially as they recover from the COVID-19 pandemic; 
• Promoting cross-border understanding between U.S.-based schools and their 
Latin American prospective students, thus driving national economic advantage 
by way of tuition; and 
• Stimulating the domestic job market, as her company will lead to the generation 
of new jobs for American workers. 
We note that neither the initial endeavor submitted in support of the petition, nor the RFE response 
business plan, address "[p]romoting cross-border understanding between U.S.-based schools and their 
Latin American prospective students." Therefore, that statement on appeal presents a new set of facts 
that cannot establish eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&NDec. 
45. Accordingly, we need not address that assertion further. 
In determining national impmiance, 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 foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Dhanasarprovided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that 
have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner would work as a postsecondary education 
administrator, as asserted on the petition. Specifically, the record does not establish thatl I 
II I the 
I or any other company mentioned by the Petitioner is a postsecondary education facility. 
On the contrary, the business plan submitted in response to the RFE describes I I 
as "a Florida-based company that specializes in offering consultancy services to educational 
institutions in the U.S.," not a postsecondary education institution. Further, the record does not 
establish how the Petitioner, working as an administrator ofl I would be 
responsible for the activities of land its subsidiaries, including the 
I I 
To the extent that the Petitioner would be responsible for those activities, it would appear that the 
proposed endeavor may benefit its subsidiaries, and its students. The 
proposed endeavor may also benefit I and the unspecified clients referenced 
4 
in the business plan. However, the record does not establish how the endeavor will rise to the level of 
having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from 
certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. Although the 
Petitioner asse1ied in response to the RFE that her own company will directly employ 14 workers and 
generate 29 indirect jobs within five years, the record does not establish that employing those 14 
workers and generating 29 indirect jobs would have substantial positive economic effects, and even if 
it did, the Petitioner does not specify the workers' workplaces and establish whether the workplaces 
are in an economically depressed area. See id. We note that the business plan indicates thatl I I I is based in I L Florida, but that it "will target clients located in Tennessee and 
Ohio" after first "expand[ing] its market outreach and collaborat[ing] with clients located in 
Kentucky." However, it does not specify where the 14 workers' and 29 indirect jobs' workplaces 
would be, and whether those job creations would have substantial positive economic effects in the 
context of those workplaces. 
The Petitioner's discussion of her qualifications and prior career accomplishments relate to the second 
Dhanasar prong, whether she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, not the first 
Dhanasar prong, whether the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 
See id. at 8 88-90. In tum, the Petitioner's discussion of the role of academic administrators in general 
and her discussion of education trends in general do not address the "specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake" and how it may have national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong, and therefore she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong 
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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5