dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geoscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 32831620 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a geoscientist, data scientist, and researcher, 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 Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or their equivalent, but that the record did not establish he merited a national interest 
waiver. 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 of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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 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: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F .3d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 2019) ( concluding that the decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver is discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree as is required for the underlying EB-2 classification. Accordingly, the remaining 
issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established under the Dhanasar 
framework that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. 
The Petitioner stated that his proposed endeavor is to develop climate models that can predict 
groundwater depletion rates and assess the broader impacts of climate change on groundwater 
resources. The Petitioner asserted that such models will allow for a better understanding of future 
climate scenarios yielding substantial benefits for the United States, including empowering the 
government to make well-informed decisions with regard to groundwater resources and potentially 
fortifying the country's resilience, sustainability, and preparedness in the face of climate change 
impacts. 
In support of the Petitioner's claim, he submitted, in pertinent part, his personal statement, several 
letters of recommendation, copies of his publications, articles related to the field of groundwater 
conservation, and a curriculum vitae and slides highlighting his education and previous work 
experience. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit. 
We agree. However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that his proposed endeavor is of national importance, that he is well positioned to advance 
the 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. On appeal, the Petitioner contests the 
Director's decision. He claims that the record establishes his proposed endeavor is nationally 
important and generally claims that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. He also submits on 
appeal a summary of his research proposal. After considering the evidence, we agree that the 
Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
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 id. at 889. Furthermore, we consider the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact, and 
"look for broader implications" noting that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. 
Additionally, "[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. 
We acknowledge the evidence of the Petitioner's education and experience in the field of geoscience, 
including the information contained in his curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation, and 
publications. This evidence, however, relates to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
his proposed endeavor rather than whether his proposed endeavor is nationally important. Similarly, 
we note the articles he provided that discuss the importance of groundwater security and recognize the 
2 
national or even global implications of groundwater conversation and climate change. As noted above, 
however, our focus is on the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake rather than 
the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work. See id. 
Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to establish his proposed 
endeavor to develop specific types of climate models are nationally important. In particular, while the 
Petitioner suggests generally that his models will allow for a better understanding of future climate 
scenarios which in tum will yield substantial benefits for the United States, he has not sufficiently 
explained or demonstrated how his specific models offer original innovations to advance, or otherwise 
have broader implications in, the field of groundwater conservation or are at a level that would have 
national implications in that field. Additionally, the letters of recommendation, while speaking highly 
of the Petitioner, do not specifically address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or discuss in sufficient 
detail the impact his proposed endeavor will have. 2 Finally, the Petitioner makes no claim and submits 
no evidence regarding whether his endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would 
have substantial positive economic effects commensurate with a level of national importance. 
Accordingly, we find the Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor is nationally 
important. 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, requiring 
that he demonstrate his proposed endeavor is nationally important. We therefore conclude that he has 
not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish he was well positioned to advance his 
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 and the Petitioner does not specifically 
contest these conclusions on appeal. However, since our determination that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is not nationally important is dispositive to our decision, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve these issues. 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We note that one of the letters inconsistently claims that the Petitioner will help oil and gas companies make informed 
decisions about exploration and development activities, while another suggests he will provide the U.S. energy industry 
with petrophysical analysis. The Petitioner does not address these inconsistencies or otherwise explain how these letters 
support the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
3