dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Family Relationship Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 14, 2024 In Re: 31072834 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a family relationship coach, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the record did 
establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor had substantial merit and that she is well-positioned 
to advance the endeavor, she did not demonstrate national importance or that it would be beneficial to 
waive the job offer 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
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: 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
• 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Petitioner asserts that she qualifies for an advanced degree professional classification by virtue of 
foreign education that she claims is equivalent to two U.S. bachelor's degrees and two U.S. master's 
degrees, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director determined that the Petitioner was 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. After reviewing the record, we disagree 
with the Director's determination. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying 
advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[a ]n official academic record showing that the 
[individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
The Petitioner claims that she has two specialist diplomas in applied mathematics and clinical 
psychology. She asserts that each respective degree is the equivalent of a combined U.S. bachelor's 
and master's degree. However, as the Petitioner did not comply with the evidentiary requirements 
regarding original documents and translations, it is not possible to meaningfully determine whether 
the evidence submitted to prove this is accurate and establishes that the Petitioner's degrees meet the 
requirements. 
To demonstrate that she has the claimed degrees, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her original 
diploma in clinical psychology, the accompanying addendum for the clinical psychology diploma, and 
a copy of her original diploma in applied mathematics. She also provided translations for all the 
aforementioned documents. The translations in the initial submission were not certified. In response 
to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner provided new translations of all the above 
documents. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also presented a translation of a transcript for her applied 
mathematics degree. Nevertheless, she did not tender any copies of the original transcript for the 
degree in Russian with this or her initial submission. As the Petitioner did not provide a copy of the 
original transcript, it is not possible to meaningfully determine whether the translation is accurate and 
supports the Petitioner's claims. 
Moreover, although the translations submitted in response to the RFE contain a "certificate of 
translation," it does not meet USCIS requirements. The certificate of translation states "that the 
present translation of the Russian language document has been translated by Scholaro, Inc. and that it 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
represents, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and accurate rendering of the 
original document into English." The certificate is signed byl !Project Coordinator. It 
does not indicate that Ms. translated the documents. 
Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation, and 
a certification from the translator that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and 
that they are competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The certification from Scholaro does not comply with this as it does not indicate that it was completed 
by the documents' translator, who is competent in English and Russian. As none of the evidence 
regarding her degrees has been translated in accordance with the plain language requirements of 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), none of documents have any evidentiary weight and will not be considered. 
In light of the above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
that she is an advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). Nonetheless, 
because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this does not form the basis of our dismissal. 
The Petitioner must address and resolve this in any further filings. 2 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
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 national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, 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. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner's business plan states that 
she intends to establish ____________ "to foster the emotional well-being and 
overall health of families and communities through [their] specialized family coaching services," focusing 
on the DIRFloortime approach. 
2 The Petitioner also claims eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the 
Director did not evaluate the Petitioner's evidence to determine whether she satisfies at least three of six categories of 
evidence listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), nor did the Director conduct a final merits determination to decide whether 
the evidence in its totality shows that the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. We decline to make an analysis and determination on this claim in the first instance 
on appeal. However, should the Petitioner overcome other deficiencies noted herein in any further filings, the matter 
would be remanded to the Director for further consideration and analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability. 
3 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was of substantial merit. Upon a de 
novo review of the record, we agree. Nevertheless, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the 
endeavor is of national importance. 
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 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 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. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work is nationally important because she will coach 
families and other professionals on the DIRFloortime method, which will "enhance the welfare of 
society as a whole" and is "aligned with federal priorities." 3 
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. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that coaching parents and training other providers in her field is 
nationally important, yet the brief and the record does not explain how this would impact the overall 
field more broadly on the level of national importance. After generally contending that the endeavor 
is nationally important, the appeal brief focuses on the Petitioner's past achievements in Russia, the 
general need for more DIRFloortime providers in her planned location, and how the endeavor aligns 
with federal priorities on children's mental health treatment. None of these arguments focus on the 
Petitioner's specific endeavor and addresses how an individual business involved in coaching clients 
and providing training to other providers will affect the overall field at a nationally important level. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either.4 It contains articles 
indicating the importance of the Petitioner's field, but these reports do not specifically address her 
proposed endeavor. She also provided information explaining the DIRFloortime method and letters 
from clients and colleagues, in which the authors attest to the Petitioner's acumen and capability. 
However, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating how individual interactions with clients 
and trainees will impact the field more broadly in a way that implicates national importance. 5 
3 We note that the appeal brief alleges that the Petitioner's coaching business "is only the first step in a larger non-profit 
social project similar to what [the Petitioner] achieved in Russia." While the record has evidence, such as the business 
plan and the Petitioner's statement, discussing her coaching business, the documentation submitted does not address any 
"non-profit social project." A petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 We observe that most of the evidence in the initial filing is copies of original documents in the Russian language, some 
without translations and others without certificates of translation. Many of these documents were resubmitted in response 
to the RFE with proper translations and certificates of translation. As we noted in the prior section, foreign language 
4 
Furthermore, she 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. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the Petitioner has not established 
that her business will have a nationally important impact. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company wi11 reach a total of 10 
employees in year five, and employee and contractor expenses will increase from $3,000.00 in year 
one to $710,000 in year five. She also projected grossing around $3 million in revenue over the 
company's first five years. The record though lacks evidence demonstrating that the projections 
claimed in the business plan will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national 
importance. It does not illustrate how creating 10 jobs and generating around $3 million in revenue 
over five years, as projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on 
the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has therefore not 
provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, the record does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients and trainees to affect 
the region or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has not shown that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that "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 ofL-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). 
documents must be accompanied by a full English language translation, and a certification from the translator that the 
English language translation is complete and accurate, and that they are competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). We can accord no weight to the documents that did not comply with these 
requirements. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6