dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geology And Environmental Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19328872 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 8, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor, seeks second preference 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 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We agreed with the Director and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. He has filed a 
motion to reopen and reconsider our decision. With the motion, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and 
be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time 
of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our March 2021 decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified or 
provided consistent information and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor, and thus had not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver under the first prong of the analytical framework 
set forth in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 We explained 
that the documentation submitted in support of the petition related to the Petitioner's past research rather 
than his future plans to conduct geology and environmental sciences research aimed at climate change 
and global warming. We further noted that while the Petitioner identified a wide variety of possible 
research topics in areas such as geology, environmental sciences, oil and gas, oceanography, 
micropaleontology, and stratigraphy, the record did not include sufficient information or supporting 
documentation to corroborate in which of these varying proposed research areas he will work on in the 
United States, nor had he identified research projects he intends to undertake in this country to mitigate 
global warming or climate change. Additionally, we determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated 
that his prospective teaching work stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having 
national importance, as he had not shown how the effects of his instructional activities would extend 
beyond the students he taught. Because the Petitioner had not established that his prospective work as a 
geology and environmental sciences researcher or teacher stands to have broader implications rising to 
the level of having national importance, we concluded that he had not satisfied the "national importance" 
requirement ofDhanasar's first prong. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner presents new evidence on motion relating to his claim that he is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. Specifically, he submits a November 2020 letter from the Geological Society of 
America (GSA) inviting him to serve on the GSA International Committee as a member-at-large for a 
period of four years. The GSA letter states that the "function of this committee is to serve as GSA' s 
coordination and communication resource seeking to promote, create, and enhance opportunities for 
international cooperation related to the scientific, educational, and outreach missions shared by GSA 
and like-minded professional societies, educational institutions, and government agencies," but it does 
not identify the research or teaching projects that the Petitioner plans to undertake. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides emails froml I University relating to teaching opportunities 
in 2020 and 2021. He also submits an August 2021 letter stating that he is currently working as an 
assistant professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences atl I 
i===]Universityl ~ Furthermore, the Petitioner presents a July 2021 job offer letter from 
L___J indicating that he would be teaching classes on "Weather and Climate" and "Global 
Environmental Problems." This evidence, however, does not show that the benefits of his instructional 
activities have broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to the students at the 
university where he intends to teach. 2 
The motion also includes the Petitioner's u dated curriculum vitae, a a er he coauthored examining 
the impact o,__ ______________________________ __,, citation 
information relating to his scholarly work, and documentation indicating that he gave a career path 
1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCTS may, as matter of 
discretion, 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 ofa labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 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. 
2 
presentation (October 2020) which offered guidance on conference participation to "fledgling 
geoscientists." 3 The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently documented the future research projects 
he plans to undertake or shown that his proposed work supports a finding of national importance. 
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." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The evidence 
presented on motion does not establish that the Petitioner's prospective work as a geology and 
environmental sciences researcher, teacher, or assistant professor stands to have broader implications 
rising to the level of having national importance. Accordingly, while the Petitioner has offered new 
evidence, this documentation does not demonstrate new facts showing that he meets the "national 
importance" requirement of Dhanasar' s first prong, and therefore he has not overcome our prior 
determination. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner contends on motion that our appellate decision "applied a legally incorrect standard 
concerning the national interest waiver's 'national importance' criterion by focusing only on [the 
Petitioner's] job title rather than his ongoing, continuing, and university-supported impactful 
research." He argues that we erred with respect to "the national interest waiver's 'no job offer' 
requirement" and "gutted the main purpose of the NIW case." The Petitioner further asserts that our 
decision "establishes a de facto job requirement which is legally incorrect." He also states that 
eligibility for a national interest waiver "is based on expertise, and consistent impact, not the 
availability of fonding" or where an individual will be working. 4 
Our decision, however, did not indicate or imply that a job offer was required under the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 5 As noted in our decision, we considered information about the Petitioner's 
current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to 
determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. In determining national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. While the Petitioner identified a wide variety of 
possible research topics, he did not offer sufficient information or supporting documentation to 
corroborate in which of these varying proposed research areas he will work on in the United States, nor 
had he identified the specific research projects he intends to undertake in our country to mitigate global 
warming or climate change. 
Regarding his eligibility under prong two of Dhanasar, the Petitioner asserts that he has a stronger 
citation record and is affiliated with "more prestigious" universities than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner 
in our Dhanasar precedent decision. While we mentioned Dr. Dhanasar' s university and "publications 
3 The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific 
endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
4 We consider a petitioner's expertise, research funding, and impact on the field among other factors under Dhanasar's 
second prong in determining whether an individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Id. at 890. 
5 We specifically stated: "As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for 
him to have a job offer from a specific employer." 
3 
and other published materials that cite his work" as part of our discussion of his evidence, our 
determination that Dr. Dhanasar was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his 
university affiliation or citation record. Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's 
education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as 
well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, 
position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." 
Id. at 893. Nonetheless, in the present matter, our appellate decision did not render a determination 
relating to the Petitioner's eligibility under prong two of the Dhanasar framework. 6 
The Petitioner's arguments do not establish that we erred in concluding that he had not satisfied the 
"national importance" requirement of Dhanasar' s first prong. The Petitioner therefore has not met the 
requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not shown that we erred in our previous decision based 
on the record before us on appeal. In addition, the motion to reconsider does not establish that our 
dismissal of his appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw, regulation, or USCIS policy. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy in dismissing his appeal, 
nor has he established new facts relevant to our decision that would warrant reopening of the 
proceedings. Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our appellate 
decision. The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains 
denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6 We determined that because the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he had not demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. Accordingly, we noted that further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in 
Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 
4