dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5822566 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 3, 2019 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and that he had not established that a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. 1 The matter is now before us 
on motion to reconsider. With the motion, the Petitioner submits a statement arguing that he 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 review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a 
motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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: 
1 See Matter of R-D-S-E- , ID# 2360141 (AAO Mar. 12, 2019). 
(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). 2 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 3, 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. 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability, but that he had not established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. Specifically, we concluded that he had not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore he did not 
meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Throughout these proceedings, the Petitioner has characterized his proposed endeavor as coordinating 
a school for bodyboarding and environmental awareness. For example, at the time of filing, the 
Petitioner asserted that he intends to work "as the Director and Founder of a school that combines the 
teaching of ocean sports with the teaching of ocean ecology and environmental sustainability." 5 In 
2 In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 T&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. for elaboration on these three prongs. 
5 Part 6 of his Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, identified his proposed employment as "Director ofa 
proposed school for body-boarding and environmental studies." 
2 
addition, he offered a J°rojecl plan indicating that he seeks to establish an "Environmental School of 
Bodyboarding" (a.k.a School of Bodyboarding) inl I Hawaii. He stated that this 
undertaking involves developing "an educational program through the practice of bodyboarding, 
helping people learn more about our environment and sport." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner again referenced his "work with the 
Environmental School of Bodyboarding" as his proposed endeavor. He discussed his "vision of 
combining ocean sports with environmental education" and indicated that "there is an unmet need for 
this type of endeavor." The Petitioner further contended that "[t]eaching young people how to protect 
the environment is work of national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided a personal statement asserting that his plan involves "a unique 
methodology that can be used to recover beaches and other natural environments that are degraded" 
and that this methodology "uses local people to solve local problems and begins with teaching children 
and young adults concepts of sustainability in the context of ocean sports (in this case, bodyboarding)." 
He claimed that his "methodology is unique in that it begins in the environment and with children, 
training them as athletes who care for the environment and teach others the same." He further 
indicated that he commenced the project in Hawaii with the "hope to replicate the model in other 
coastal areas of the U.S." The Petitioner also stated that he seeks "to create jobs and provide a program 
that will benefit young people here and the environment just as it has in Brazil." 
Our appellate decision concluded that the Petitioner had not "presented sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance." We explained that the Petitioner had not shown his proposed endeavor "stands 
to sufficiently extend beyond his school and its participants to impact the field more broadly than his 
specific programs." 
On motion, the Petitioner offers a personal statement in which he attempts to re-characterize his 
proposed endeavor: 
While I appreciate the [AAO's] effort in reviewing my submitted documents, I see ... 
that I was not able to clearly explain my project. When the [ AAO] states that I wish to 
be a "coordinator of a school for bodyboarding and environmental awareness" and that 
the Petitioner "intends to work as the director and founder of a school that combines 
the teaching of ocean sports with the teaching of ocean ecology and environmental 
sustainability," I see that I was not successful in explaining what I do and what my 
plans are. 
That is not my proposed endeavor, I am an environmental engineer . . . . I want to 
emphasize that that the work I do in Brazil and hope to do here is of Coastal Restoration 
and Conservation, most specifically the Recovery of Coastal Dunes as an 
Environmental Engineer .... 
In Dhanasar, we held that a petitioner must identify "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner acknowledges on motion that he previously 
did not clearly explain his proposed endeavor. He does not contest our findings relating to any specific 
3 
documentation or offer farther arguments demonstrating that our analysis under Dhanasar's first 
prong was in error. The Petitioner instead asks that we reconsider his proposed endeavor as an 
environmental engineer whose work is aimed at coastal restoration and conservation. A petitioner may 
not make material changes to his petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. SeeMatteroflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). Regardless, the Petitioner 
has not shown his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his environmental 
engineering projects to impact the field more broadly than his specific coastal restoration and 
conservation programs. 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not shown that we erred 
in our previous analysis based on the record before us on appeal. Further, the motion to reconsider does 
not establish that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or 
USCIS policy. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed work meets the 
"national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion does not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy. As the Petitioner has not met the first prong set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6 Similarly, 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. 
4