dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Educational Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 12, 2023 In Re: 27463744 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a former educator who intends to provide educational consulting services in the United 
States, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
eligible for the requested EB-2 visa category as an advanced degree professional, but concluded she 
did not establish that it would be in the national interest to grant her a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer and labor certification requirement. 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 agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the required "national importance" 
of her proposed work. Accordingly, 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. An 
advanced degree is defined , in relevant part, as any United States academic or professional degree or 
a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 I&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 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 Director determined that the Petitioner established her eligibility as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree under 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act and the record supports this conclusion. 2 
Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of the three prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. In denying the petition, the Director addressed all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework and concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets any of them. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she established that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be 
in the national interest and contends that the Director did not objectively evaluate all the submitted 
evidence under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 
For the reasons provided 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. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner did not identify her proposed occupation on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, nor did she provide a personal statement or other evidence explaining the nature of her specific 
proposed endeavor with her initial submission. In a cover letter accompanying the petition, counsel for 
the Petitioner described her as "a professor and researcher in good standing who has more than 34 years 
of experience." 3 Counsel indicated that she will focus on "research and development of behavioral 
patterns to help in the detection and prevention of extreme violence by children and adolescents as an 
alternative to avoid stricter gun regulations." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that the Petitioner did provide specific insight as 
to what she intends to do in the United States and requested a detailed description of the proposed 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner submitted official academic records demonstrating that she completed a four-year undergraduate degree 
program in Venezuela leading to the title "licenciado en artes," as well as a two-year graduate program in education leading 
to a "titulo de magister" degree. She also provided an evaluation from an academic credentials evaluator who determined 
that her Venezuelan graduate degree is the equivalent of a United States master's degree in education. 
3 The Petitioner's curriculum vitae indicates that she worked as a contracted teacher and professor in the arts at the 
university level from 1996 until 2007 and as the head of the arts department at a pre-school and primary school from 2004 
until 2007. She indicates she worked primarily as an actor and television producer prior to 1996. The Petitioner did not 
indicate that she had been employed between April 2007 and the filing of this petition in September 2020. 
2 
endeavor so that the Director could evaluate her request for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted her professional plan for her proposed consulting 
business~----------~Florida. According to this plan, the business will operate in "the 
mental health counseling industry for educational institutions and parents." It indicates that the 
company's mission is to "[p ]rovide help to educational institutions, parents and teachers in training or in 
service in order to prevent cases of violence, bullying and terror in schools." The Petitioner states that 
her business will target educational institutions to provide them with "instruction on the interpretation of 
drawings, as a tool capable of detecting in time the existence of behavior anomalies in students, and thus, 
be able to refer them later to health professionals." The professional plan also indicates that the 
Petitioner's business will offer services to parents "using drawing as a means to detect the socio-emotional 
development of their children or adolescents, with the aim that they learn to connect better with their 
children." The Petitioner states that the services offered will "make school safer places" and help parents 
"better know and relate to their children." 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, substantial merit, and national importance, focuses on the 
specific endeavor that the individual 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of a professional plan, expert opinion letter, 
industry reports and articles, and recommendation letters as evidence in support of this prong and 
determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor. 
However, the Director concluded that the evidence did not establish that the endeavor would have 
national importance, emphasizing that the Petitioner had not shown her endeavor's potential for 
broader implications in the field of education or school counseling, that it would have substantial 
positive economic effects or would broadly enhance societal welfare, or that it has the significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, consistent with Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included articles and government publications from sources including 
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, American Progress, Juvenile Justice 
Information Exchange, and the Children's Defense Fund that discuss the impact of gun violence on 
children and adolescents in the United States. She subsequently supplemented the record with media 
reports addressing a shortage of school counselors and school psychologists despite an increasing need 
for such services. This evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor is an area 
that has substantial merit, as she proposes to work in tandem with schools and parents to identify 
children at risk for antisocial behaviors and to refer them for mental health services. 
The national importance of addressing children's mental health needs and preventing violent crime 
against children is not in question. However, in determining national importance, the relevant inquiry 
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 
3 
Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, 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 agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed activities have merit. But 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor will have national implications in the 
educational counseling field or that it would otherwise broadly impact the field in which she intends 
to work. As noted, she proposes to operate a small consulting business that will offer teachers, other 
school staff: and parents' instruction in using "drawing interpretation" as a preventative tool to assess 
the socio-emotional development of children, and to identify students who may show signs of 
engaging in anti-social behavior so that they can be referred for evaluation by mental health 
professionals. 
In Dhanasar, 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 find 
the record similarly does not show that the Petitioner's proposed consulting activities would 
sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to impact the educational or school counseling field more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The submitted professional plan does not 
establish the anticipated scope of the company's services in terms of projected clientele, indicate the 
company's potential for growth, or explain how the preventative methods or processes attributed to 
the Petitioner would reach beyond those schools or parents who opt to use her company's services. 
We further observed in Dhanasar that endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance 
of human knowledge may satisfy the first prong, whether or not the potential accomplishments in 
those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States. Id. at 889. An expert 
opinion letter from an evaluator atl IEducational Services states that the Petitioner "has created 
a process of therapeutic intervention based on art therapy" and emphasizes that international 
organizations have shown increasing interest in the emotional development of young children and 
methods of early intervention. In addition, counsel refers to the Petitioner as a "researcher in good 
standing" in this field. However, the record does not support a conclusion that she is or would be 
engaged in ongoing research activities, such that her work has the potential to impact the field through 
publications, conferences or other venues in which research is disseminated. Nor does the record 
establish that the Petitioner has already impacted her field through the "process of therapeutic 
intervention" referenced in the expert opinion letter. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's master's thesis was titled "Drawing as a means of expressing 
the socio-emotional development of the preschool child," and that she delivered a few lectures related 
to this topic around the time she completed her master's degree in 2006. However, the record does 
not demonstrate that her thesis research was published and cited by others, or that her therapeutic 
intervention based on art therapy has otherwise influenced or impacted her field. Further, the record, 
which includes the Petitioner's detailed resume and letters from former employers and co-workers, 
does not substantiate that she has been employed in any capacity since leaving her last position in the 
educational field in 2007 or that she has conducted or published any subsequent research in the field. 
The record therefore does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific work has introduced improved 
processes or advances in the educational or school counseling field. While the record demonstrates 
an interest in understanding the emotional development of children and devising methods of early 
4 
intervention, the Petitioner's own contributions to this valuable field of research are not sufficiently 
documented. 
In Dhanasar, 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. Here, the Petitioner's 
professional plan for her consulting business includes a section titled "main members." It identifies 
her as the company director, with three other staff assigned to the "training," "consulting" and 
"administration and marketing" units, respectively. The Petitioner indicates that the company will 
hire one additional employee in accounting management/coordination "as income increases." The 
professional plan also briefly outlines the company's pricing structure for three types of services. It 
does not contain, however, any staffing, income, salary, or tax payment projections or provide other 
figures demonstrating that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or that it has the potential to result in substantial economic effects, either on a national or 
regional basis or in an economically depressed area. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the record shows that her endeavor will "more likely than not 
create job opportunities within the field" and she emphasizes her plans to hire staff to conduct the 
general operations of the business. She also discusses the consulting field, noting that "the business 
model of consulting is similar to staffing wherein the objective is to effectively lower labor costs for 
clients." However, as discussed above, the record lacks sufficient evidence that the number of jobs 
created by her business, and any reduced labor costs that may benefit her clients would be significant 
enough to establish her proposed endeavor's national importance. Although the Petitioner submitted 
media articles that discuss a shortage of school counselors and psychologists in the labor market, the 
record does not support a determination that the Petitioner's consulting business would alleviate this 
shortage. Despite indicating her intent to operate in the "mental health counseling" industry, the 
Petitioner does not purport to offer services that would replace the need for counselors and 
psychologists in the educational setting or indicate that she will hire persons trained as counselors or 
psychologists to provide the company's services. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that the economic effects of her proposed endeavor are 
"substantial." She did not provide specific plans, projections of indirect economic benefits, or other 
sufficient evidence to explain how her specific company activities will have broader implications in 
the field that rise to the level of national importance or that the company's activities would impact the 
field beyond the company and its clients. As such, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. Because she does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar 's national interest waiver test, we 
need not consider whether she meets the two remaining prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25 ( 197 6) ("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). We 
will therefore reserve consideration of the remaining national interest criteria. 
5 
C. Missing Initial Evidence 
Finally, although not addressed in the Director's final decision, we note the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, "[t]o apply for the [ national interest] exemption the petitioner 
must submit Form ETA 750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, in duplicate." 4 The Petitioner has 
not provided this required initial evidence and for this additional reason, the petition cannot be 
approved. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8)(ii) (providing that USCIS in its discretion may deny a benefit 
request for lack of initial evidence). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the required first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
In addition, the petition cannot be approved because the Petitioner did not submit all required initial 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4). The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
with each considered as an independent and alternative basis for denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Alternatively, USCIS will accept pans J, K, and L of Form ETA 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Ce11ification. See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
6