dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geospatial Information Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24227544 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The self-Petitioner, a researcher in the field of geospatial information management, seeks 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and requests a waiver of this 
second-preference, immigrant visa category's normal requirement for a U.S. job offer and certification 
from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has 
discretion to forego the requirement if a noncitizen's proposed U.S. employment is "in the national 
interest." Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director found the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional and "well-positioned" to advance her proposed research, 
which the Director also determined has "substantial merit." The Director, however, did not find the 
requested waiver to be in the national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, 
asserting demonstration of the "national importance" of her proposed research and the work's potential 
generation of significant U.S. benefits meriting a waiver grant. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence. Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Exercising 
de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of her proposed U.S. 
research. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must fust demonstrate their 
qualifications for the underlying immigrant visa category, as either an advanced degree professional 
or a noncitizen of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act. This visa category normally requires a prospective U.S. employer to seek a noncitizen's services 
and obtain DOL certification to pennanently employ them in the country. Section 212(a)(5)(D) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). To avoid the need for a job offer/labor certification , a petitioner must 
demonstrate that waiving these U.S. worker protections is in the national interest. Section 
203(b)(2)(B)(l) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." But we have established the 
following framework for adjudicating requests for national interest waivers. See Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). If otherwise qualified as an advanced degree professional or 
noncitizen of exceptional ability, a petitioner may merit a waiver of the job-offer/labor certification 
requirement if they establish that: 
Id. 
• Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;" 
• They are "well-positioned" to advance their intended endeavor; and 
• On balance, a waiver of the normal job-offer/labor certification requirement would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a native and citizen of South Korea, earned bachelor and master 
of public administration degrees in her home country. She worked for the city of I south Korea 
for nearly 40 years, developing and implementing policies for land administration and geospatial 
information management. The record shows the Petitioner's development of systems to identify 
emergency evacuation spaces in buildings and assign virtual addresses to property, including not only 
buildings but also parks and alleys. Her developments received numerous awards - both in and out of 
South Korea - and proved useful in applications designed to protect people from natural disasters and 
cnme. 
In the United States, the Petitioner proposes to research policies on infrastructure, legal frameworks, 
and coordination mechanisms to collect, share, and use geospatial data more effectively. She 
submitted evidence that U.S. governments and policymakers use geospatial information and tools to: 
produce floodplain maps; conduct the national census; map foreclosed properties; and respond to 
natural disasters like wildfires and hurricanes. She states that geospatial data is also a "critical 
component of national security," as "[e]ffective epidemiological monitoring builds on common 
geospatial information to track the spread of viruses, identify vulnerabilities, manage facilities, and 
gauge responses." The Petitioner contends that her research would help the United States build 
capacity for using geospatial data to enhance decision-making and spur private-sector development of 
geospatial technologies. 
The record supports the Director's findings that the Beneficiary: qualifies for the requested immigrant 
visa category as an advanced degree professional; satisfied part of the initial prong of the Dhanasar 
framework for national interest by demonstrating the "substantial merit" of her proposed U.S. 
research; and met Dhanasar's second prong as "well-positioned" to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence asserting her demonstration of the remaining 
Dhanasar elements: the "national importance" of her proposed work; and its potential generation of 
significant U.S. benefits justifying a waiver of a job offer and labor certification. 
2 
For the following reasons, however, the Petitioner's appellate evidence does not demonstrate the 
purported national importance of her proposed research. 1 
A. Eligibility at the Time of Filing 
A petitioner must demonstrate their eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit request." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Contrary to the regulation, the Petitioner's appellate evidence does not demonstrate the 
national importance of her proposed research as of the petition's filing. 
The Petitioner submits copies of a "Confirmation of Business Cooperation Plan" from a vice president 
of a South Korean geospatial technology company. The official states that, based on the Petitioner's 
"key roles" in the company's prior development of spatial image maps, it wants to collaborate with 
her again in the second half of 2023, when it plans to introduce geospatial products in the United 
States. Also, copies of email messages and other documents show that the Petitioner had an online, 
video meeting with a researcher from a U.S. university laboratory. The Petitioner states that the 
researcher asked her how she made an algorithm to design an AoT system in South Korea and her 
opinion on the use of AoT in the United States. 
The Director found the record lacking evidence of the Petitioner's "past research showing that her 
proposed research could broadly impact her field." The Petitioner contends that her appellate evidence 
addresses the deficiency and demonstrates the interest of U.S. research institutions in applying her 
work and expertise to current projects. 
The evidence, however, shows the Petitioner's receipt of the business cooperation plan and her 
meeting with the U.S. university researcher in July 2022, after both the petition's September 2020 
filing and its April 2022 denial. Thus, contrary to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), the Petitioner's appellate 
evidence does not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed U.S. research at the time of 
the petition 's filing. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated the national importance of her 
proposed work. 
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence 
Also, the Petitioner's appellate evidence lacks sufficient details to establish that her proposed work 
could have a broad impact on the field or the United States. The business cooperation plan states the 
South Korean company's need for her "ability to plan space in large scale of space planning and ability 
to systematically address and manage objects in planning narrow spaces" for the company's U.S. 
"construction engineering registration" project. But the record does not sufficiently indicate the 
project's "potential prospective impact." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889 ("In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact.") 
1 The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's findings regarding the national importance of her proposed work. The 
record shows that the Director sufficiently notified the Petitioner of required evidence and afforded her a reasonable 
opportunity to respond. Although we could decline to consider her appellate evidence under Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N 
Dec. 764,766 (BIA 1988), we will review the materials. 
3 
Also, counsel asserts that the Petitioner's meeting with the U.S. researcher shows that her expertise 
and research "will elevate and accelerate development and implementation" of an autonomous 
mechanical system on which the researcher's laboratory is purportedly working. But counsel's 
assertion does not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988) (citation omitted). The record lacks sufficient proof of the project, the researcher's intended 
use of the Petitioner or her research on the project, or the project's potential prospective impact. For 
this additional reason, the appellate evidence does not demonstrate the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed U.S. research. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of her proposed U.S. work and thus that 
the requested waiver is in the national interest. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner 's inability to establish the national importance of her proposed U.S. work resolves this appeal. Thus, we 
need not consider her additional , appellate evidence regarding the purported U.S. benefits of a waiver grant. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.") (citation omitted) . We will therefore reserve consideration 
of that issue. 
4