dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2024 InRe: 31417915 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of environmental consulting, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) 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 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Workers, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner held an advanced 
degree or was an individual of exceptional ability and therefore had not demonstrated eligibility for 
EB-2 immigrant classification. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner was ineligible for 
and did not merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion because she did not establish that 
she was well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor or 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 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification
, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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 T&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. 
Id. 
II. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Director initially concluded 
that the record did not establish that the Petitioner held an advanced 
degree because she did not provide a certified translation of her master's degree diploma. On appeal, 
the Petitioner provides a certified translation of her master's degree diploma as well as an official 
academic record showing that the degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. advanced degree. The 
Petitioner is therefore eligible for underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner initially indicated that her proposed endeavor was to 
work as a biochemist or specialist in environmental biology and chemistry to fill vacancy gaps and 
positively affect the U.S. economy. In response to a request for evidence the Petitioner submitted, in 
part, a business plan for a consulting company she claims to own and to have founded in New York. 
The business plan indicates that through the company she will "work with clients throughout the 
country, focusing on providing high-quality environmental consulting services, including developing 
environmental programs and project planning, conducting audits and risk analysis, as well as training 
clients' staff in environmental practices," and additionally aims to help "companies comply with legal 
norms and rules in the field of ecology." The Petitioner plans to use her own funds to develop the 
company. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit and national 
importance, but, as noted above, that she was not well positioned to advance the endeavor under prong 
two of the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director erred in making this 
conclusion and failed to consider the detailed business plan describing her proposed endeavor; her 
participation in a lecture in 2004 and inclusion as an author of a scholarly article published in 2011; 
1 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
and her language proficiency in multiple languages. After our review of the record, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
The first Dhanasar prong, regarding substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. The second Dhanasar prong, however, shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether a petitioner is well 
positioned to advance a proposed endeavor under the second prong, we consider factors including, but 
not limited to: their 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. See Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree in physical geography in 1997 and 
a master's degree in environmental biology and chemistry in 2005. Her employment experience 
includes approximately four years as a translator between 1997 and 2001; four years using computer­
aided design for production of housing materials between 2005 and 2009; and two years performing 
data analysis and creating various tables and graphs between 2010 and 2012. The record reflects that 
since 2012 the Petitioner has not been employed. 
Initially, despite having obtained two degrees related to environmental studies, the Petitioner has not 
established she has skills, knowledge, or a record of success associated with environmental consulting 
services, developing environmental programs and project planning, conducting audits and risk 
analysis, training staff in environmental practices, or compliance with U.S. environmental rules and 
regulations, which she proposes her company will perform. The record does not reflect the Petitioner 
has formal education in business, nor does it reflect she previously created and successfully ran a 
company for any purpose, either in the United States or abroad, to reflect prior knowledge in or a 
record of success managing and developing a company. Furthermore, the Petitioner's descriptions of 
her experience in translating, construction, and data analysis do not specifically relate to environmental 
services, nor, in particular, U.S. environmental rules and regulations. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently explained how she acquired, if at all, experience specifically related to her proposed 
endeavor through these previous positions. Letters of recommendation submitted on behalf of the 
Petitioner similarly do not specifically address how her education and experience relate to her 
proposed endeavor in the United States. The Petitioner has also been unemployed since 2012 and she 
has not adequately explained how her education and any previous experience has remained relevant 
to her proposed endeavor since that time. 
Additionally, although the Petitioner provided a business plan for her proposed endeavor, she has not 
submitted evidence of progress towards achieving that endeavor. The record does not show that the 
Petitioner has taken steps towards creating a legal entity for the consulting company she claims to 
have founded and own. And while the Petitioner claims she will use her own funds to financially 
support the company, she has not provided any financial documents showing she possesses the funds 
she proposes to invest or that she has made any investments towards the creation or development of 
the company. Finally, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals in developing her 
company or for the services her company would offer. 
3 
Thus, despite her education, fluency in multiple languages, and having a business plan for her proposed 
endeavor, without sufficient evidence of related skills, knowledge, or a record of success towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor, or evidence demonstrating the means of financial support to 
undertake the endeavor or any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, the record does not 
support that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not met the requisite second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that she demonstrate she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. We therefore conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
As noted above, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework as she did not show 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. While the Petitioner contests 
this conclusion on appeal, because our determination that the Petitioner is not well positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor is dispositive of her appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
the appellate arguments on this issue. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4