dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9896458 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 1, 2020 
Form 1-140, 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 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) . 
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 she 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 immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 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 ofjob 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. 
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 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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 foreign national. 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 certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
1 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) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, 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. 3 
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 a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner indicated that she intends 
to continue her career as a postsecondary education administrator. She explained that her proposed 
endeavor includes "overseeing student services, academics, and faculty research at colleges and 
universities" and "developing and implementing the organizational and administrative goals of the 
institution" she seeks to serve. The Petitioner further asserted that her undertaking may involve working 
"in various areas of the educational environment, such as admissions, student services, recordkeeping," 
or as an academic officer. In addition, she stated that her proposed endeavor "play[ s] a critical role in 
shaping the educational path of students, as well as the organizational stability and overall health of the 
institution" where she plans to work. 4 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that she intends to "prospect jobs within the United States' higher 
education system" and "implement administrative and management standards that center on the student 
experience, and allow for a growth-based approach to institutional and student success." She further 
contends that her proposed work stands to "fill a gap within the U.S. education system, and offer solutions 
to government-based worries."5 
The record includes information about American postsecondary education, a higher education system 
focused on student success, higher education reform, the declining value of the traditional four-year 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner listed multiple "U.S. organizations and schools that are advertising open positions" for which she intends 
to apply. The Petitioner's list included administrative positions with organizations and schools such as District of 
Columbia College Access Program, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, University of California-Santa Cruz, University 
of Colorado, Chapman University, and the Salvation Army. As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information 
about her prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her 
proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
5 The appellate submission includes a January 2020 agreement between the Petitioner and for the 
Petitioner to purchase "ten percent (10%) of the profits fro ... __________________ ____. and 
1 % membership units in I I for $72,000.00. This agreement further states: "Other than providing the 
funding as provided herein, [the Petitioner] shall have no duties or responsibilities hereunder nor liabilities hereunder." 
The agreement does not indicate that the Petitioner will provide services to~------~as a postsecondary 
education administrator. Furthermore, the agreement post-dates the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
3 
college degree , U.S. Federal Government reporting of graduation rate data, and challenges facing U.S. 
colleges and universitie s. In addition , the Petitioner provided articles discussing the future of U.S . 
higher education , organizational expansion in a transforming higher education institution, the 
changing roles and responsibilitie s of administrative support staff, the U.S. education system, and 
shared leadership in higher education. She also offered information about postsecondary education 
administrators , the industry outlook for U.S. education consultants , career paths for college presidents , 
improving outcomes in American higher education , and the effectiveness of college learning in 
preparing students for jobs . The record therefore shows that the Petitioner's proposed work as a 
postsecondary education administrator has substantial merit. 
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 I&N Dec . at 889. In Dhana sar, we further 
noted that "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. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 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. 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor is "capable of producing substantially 
positive effects, due to the ripple effects of her professional activities within the education industry." She 
contends that her undertaking offers "a productive higher education system" that stands to improve our 
"country's societal welfare and economic future." The Petitioner further maintains that she plans to "put 
in place structured pathways that guide students through support-based systems" and that this work stands 
to "improve students' academic journeys , while simultaneously focusing on increasing graduation rates." 
She also claims that her proposed work "within the higher education system addresses and mitigates 
institutionalized limitations that affect U.S. societal welfare and the national economy." Furthermore, the 
Petitioner argues that her undertaking "will substantially benefit the U.S. education industry, thus 
impacting the country's societal development and economic growth." 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Although the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable education administration services for 
her future employer s, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her propo sed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhana sar 
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, we conclude the 
record does not show that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her 
potential employ ers to impact her field or the U.S. postsecondary education system 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 . Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner 's education administration projects would 
4 
reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner 's propo sed work does not meet the fust prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does 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. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar , therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5