dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geography Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 27, 2024 In Re: 33377187 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an educational consultant and researcher in geography education, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver pet1t1ons. Dhanasar states 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. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree.2 The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner established 
that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit, he did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second 
prong, 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 under Dhanasar's third prong. Upon de nova review, we 
agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver of the 
labor certification would be in the national interest.3 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 To qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted academic 
certificates and transcripts for his master's and doctoral degrees, as well as an education evaluation for his doctoral degree. 
For his master's degree, the Petitioner submitted his diploma indicating he received a master's with thesis in geography 
teaching from _______________ in For his doctoral degree,in Turkey on July 13, 2005. 
he submitted his doctoral diploma indicating he completed his Ph.D. program at _________ 
on July 13, 2005, which is the same date he earned his master's degree. The doctoral diploma also 
indicates, "[s]ince the doctoral diploma is being prepared, this graduation temporary certificate has been issued to be 
replaced with the diploma." The record does not include evidence showing that this temporary certificate was replaced 
with the doctoral diploma. The education evaluation states it was "prepared based on scans of academic records" and that 
the Petitioner's "Doktora Diplomasi" is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. doctor of philosophy degree in geography 
education. The report did not include an evaluation of the Petitioner's master's degree. However, the record includes 
conflicting evidence of the date he earned his doctoral degree. While the temporary certificate indicates the Petitioner 
earned his doctoral degree on July 13, 2005, the Petitioner's curriculum vitae, his statements, and the education evaluation 
indicate he earned his doctoral degree in 2009. Moreover, the academic transcripts for his master's and doctoral degrees 
do not indicate the dates of attendance or completion of the degree programs. Because the Petitioner's doctoral degree is 
the basis for his being an advanced degree professional and the record has conflicting information on the date when he 
earned his doctoral degree, we cannot fully assess whether the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of degree above that 
ofa U.S. bachelor's degree. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 {BIA 1988). However, because there are other 
dispositive grounds to dismiss the appeal, we will reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. Id. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus 
on the ''the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. 
The Petitioner indicates that he has been self-employed since 2016 as an educational consultant who 
provides guidance to university graduate students and academic staff working as research assistants 
on the methodological approaches for their research. He states his consulting is primarily focused on 
statistical and spatial technology by assisting with data analysis using software that adheres to 
scientific research standards, proper reporting of research findings, and guidance for transforming 
research into academic publications. Previous to his consulting work and after earning his doctoral 
degree, he indicates he was a professor at I I in Turkey where he taught courses and 
conducted research in the field of geography education. 
In his petition, the Petitioner states in Part 6 that his proposed employment will be an associate 
professor in geography education. His initial statement indicates he intends to pursue "work in the 
field of geography education in the United States." To clarify his proposed endeavor, his reply to a 
request for evidence (RFE) states he initially intends to secure an academic position at a U.S. university 
where he would having a "pivotal role" in "[Geographic Information Systems (GIS)] training 
programs for interested teachers, students, and individuals." He states that he intends to raise 
community awareness about the benefits of GIS technology by training teachers who would impart 
the knowledge to students for use in their lives which would ultimately benefit the community. In 
addition, he states that he plans to continue his research and publish his findings which "will center 
on advancing geographic education, with a specific focus on the utilization of spatial technologies and 
[GI S] across diverse aspects of geography instruction." His research work will be "aimed at enhancing 
the knowledge, approach, and practical skills of American society in areas such as environmental 
sustainability, civic awareness, citizenship, and geographic literacy." 
The Director evaluated the Petitioner's qualification for the national interest waiver based on his intent 
to work as a teacher in the field of geography finding that for Dhanasar's first prong, although his 
intent to be a teacher has substantial merit, it is not of national importance. The Director pointed out 
that the evidence submitted showed the importance of the field of geography, however, the Petitioner 
did not document that his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact would have broader 
implications in his field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive 
economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Director erred in the decision by focusing on a narrow 
interpretation of his proposed endeavor as a teacher in the field of geography. He points out that his 
RFE reply explained that he intends to hold the title of associate professor at a U.S. university with a 
"specific focus on the utilization of spatial technologies and [GIS] across diverse aspects of geography 
instruction," as well as continuing his research "integrating GIS into geography education," publishing 
his GIS research, and "spearheading GIS training programs for interested teachers, students, and 
individuals." He claims his "research in geography education not only contributes to enhancing the 
3 
American educational system but also addresses the increasing demands of the U.S. job market by 
adequately preparing students nationwide for careers in geospatial technology." 
With respect to the Petitioner's proposed teaching and training activities, while this work has 
substantial merit, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that his instructional 
and training work at a U.S. university would impact the geography field or GIS learning industries 
more broadly, as opposed to being limited to teachers and students at his prospective employer 
university. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities at a U.S. university 
did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. The benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly beneficial to the 
students being taught and not the wider population. Id. Similarly, without independent, probative 
documentary evidence of a broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed teaching and training activities 
in geography education at a U.S. university do not meet the "national importance" element of the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
For his intended research work, the Petitioner generally explains his proposed research would focus 
on integrating GIS to geography education and that he intends to publish his research findings. The 
first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the "specific endeavor." Id. at 889. 
An endeavor is more specific than ageneral occupation and should include details of the types of work 
a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As a comparison, the petitioner in 
Dhanasar demonstrated that he intended to continue research into the design and development of 
propulsion systems for potential use in military and civilian technologies such as nano-satellites, 
rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N at 
892. 
Here, the Petitioner did not offer a specific proposed endeavor for his intended research work as 
required under Dhanasar. Instead, as noted above, the Petitioner broadly claimed that his research 
"will center on advancing geographic education, with a specific focus on the utilization of spatial 
technologies and [GIS] across diverse aspects of geography instruction." He further stated his research 
will be "aimed at enhancing the knowledge, approach, and practical skills of American society in areas 
such as environmental sustainability, civic awareness, citizenship, and geographic literacy." The 
Petitioner did not further elaborate or identify what type of research he intends to pursue with 
integrating GIS in the field of geography education. 
On appeal, he claims that the Director did not review the evidence submitted which shows his work is 
more than his intended teaching activities. However, the Petitioner's claims and evidence relating to 
the substantial merit and national importance of his intended research mostly explain his previous 
research and the importance of geography education. For instance, the record includes reference letters 
from his previous colleagues attesting to his teaching abilities, his positive influence on students, and 
his previous research which highlight the importance of geography education on global citizenship. 
Some reference letters from individuals in his field focus on the Petitioner's previous professional 
experience in research and teaching with general statements that the Petitioner has made contributions 
in his field in the past which would be of value to the United States. However, the letters do not 
identify or address his specific prospective endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner also points to media 
articles and industry reports which focus on the importance of geography education and the growth 
4 
the field of geography education. However, these articles and reports also do not address the 
Petitioner's proposed research or his specific endeavor. 
Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that he presented a specific 
proposed endeavor for his intended research in geography education as contemplated under Dhanasar. 
The record does not contain distinct, detailed information explaining the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor for conducting research in the field of geography education. Instead, the Petitioner broadly 
claimed that he would conduct research focused on GIS integration with geography education. He did 
not elaborate and articulate, for example, the type of research he intended to pursue. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner qualifies for the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver. This identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, and 
therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments and eligibility 
under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(noting 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5