dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2024 In Re: 30188978 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 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 Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. 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 a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
1 The Director 's decision only addressed the Petitioner 's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand the matter to the Director in order 
make a determination on the underlying immigrant classification. 
2 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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 the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner's cover letter stated: 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor is to create an educational and technology 
platform, that will help to improve STEM [science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics] education the U.S. Specifically, the platform will seek to enhance 
existing STEM education and curriculum in schools and help bridge the gap between 
traditional education and 21 st-centry education, which incorporates STEM into all 
aspects of education. The Petitioner's method to structure better education systems is 
working collectively with schools, educators, industry experts, corporations and 
investors. 
Moreover, [the Petitioner] will employ a new technology called Leaming Management 
System (LMS), where every stakeholder including school district, management teams 
at school, classroom teachers and parents can be connected seamlessly in one platform. 
LMS is still evolving technology, but this one technology makes day-to-day works in 
the education effective immensely such as by reducing numerous paperwork and 
communications. 
(Exhibits omitted.) 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a statement reflecting: 
My proposed endeavor is to build better education in the United States by leveraging 
STEM education and education technology. Children is [sic] the future of the country, 
and there is so much to do to improve how education works in the Iarea 
and further in the state of Massachusetts ..... 
My project starts from building scalable and flexible STEM curriculum. Whenever I 
work with teachers in traditional subject matters, they highly value the learning effects 
of my curriculum. First step is to integrate my curriculum into theirs for each grade 
level, so students can understand the connections among subject matters, STEM and 
real world. Second step is to scale it to all grade curriculum as flexible as possible in 
terms of age, gender and background. I will get corporations involved in this phase 
with my business development capabilities, because they are the ones who know the 
2 
latest trends of the world. It is also great for corporations to get their recognitions and 
exposures from corporate social responsibility perspectives .... 
Also, innovative education technologies are often invented by startups. Education 
technology is often regarded as the last biggest frontier of technological innovation, 
and I have been working education technology startups through my investment 
activities. LMS is just an example of what education community has benefited from, 
and there are numerous companies in the United States trying to innovate education 
with their great technologies. As an investment and business development 
professional, it is my important skill to validate what works better in school and 
education systems. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a business plan for 
"establishing and running an educational entity in Massachusetts." In addition, the Petitioner offered 
a "National Interest Statement" indicating: 
STEM education can help close the gap between different demographics. By providing 
all students with access to high-quality STEM education, we can help level the playing 
field and give all people the opportunity to succeed. 
. . . STEM education and education technology is crucial in the United States to drive 
economic growth, provide job opportunities, foster innovation, address workforce 
gaps, and tackle societal challenges. My endeavor in STEM education and education 
technology will contribute to the US to secure its economic future, maintain its 
technological leadership, and create a skilled workforce capable of meeting the 
demands of a rapidly evolving world. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains: 
This endeavor is plainly different from the proposed employment the Petitioner seeks 
to hold in furtherance of the endeavor. The Petitioner's employment as by establishing 
and running and educational entity should accordingly only be considered as a vehicle 
by which to achieve or otherwise further endeavor, and we respectfully request that the 
adjudicating officer base the national importance assessment on the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as is required by the controlling precedent. 
The Petitioner did not initially indicate any intention to own and operate a business. The Petitioner 
must establish all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time 
filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Further, a petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofIzummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision further provides, citing Matter ofBardouille, 18 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to 
the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed 
proposed endeavor of opening, owning, and operating his own educational entity. 
3 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner provided a wide range of topics and information regarding STEM, 
education and technology. Here, the Petitioner has shown the substantial merit of his initial proposed 
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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of creating his 
educational and technology platform rather than the importance of STEM fields, education, 
occupations, and related topics. 3 In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of 
the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]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 "[aa ]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. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his platform largely 
influences the field and rises to the level of national importance. Similar to this case, in Dhanasar, 
we determined 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. The record does not show through 
supporting documentation how his particular endeavor sufficiently extends beyond his prospective 
students or clients in thel !Massachusetts area, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 4 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show how his educational and LMS technology platform has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. Instead, the Petitioner argues and references to documentation relating to the general 
opportunities for the STEM workforce and marketplace. Without evidence regarding any projected 
U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his particular future work, the record does not 
show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his educational and 
technology platform would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
3 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
4 See also generally 5 USCTS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (instructing that while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, 
such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and 
therefore generally would not establish their national importance). 
4 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility 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 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); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
5