dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Higher Education Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 15, 2023 In Re : 27545031 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a residential advisor , seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2) . 
The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this 
EB-2 immigrant classification. See 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. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner 
qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer is in the national interest. 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo 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 as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. While neither 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 pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as a 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner established eligibility for EB-2 classification as an advanced 
degree professional based upon his master of public administration degree from the University of
I I which he obtained in 2015. 2 However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and as such, 
did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
On the Form I-140 Petition, the Petitioner provided the proposed job title of "residential hall 
coordinator" with the SOC occupational code 39-9041, "Residential Advisors." The Petitioner also 
submitted a job offer letter from the University! lfor employment as a "Hall Coordinator" within 
the Division of Student Life and stated that this was his position at the time of filing the petition. As 
to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially stated that he endeavors "to assist in the development 
of college students academically, socially and emotionally" and that he proposes to "continue with his 
current work of helping college students enrich their educational experience, boost their chance of 
enjoying their college experience, and assisting those students interested in pursuing graduate 
degrees." The Petitioner also stated that he has work involves crisis management on college campuses, 
such as responding to after-hours issues ranging from flooding to sexual assault and assisting with 
Title XI compliance and reporting. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted evidence that he 
accepted a new position as the director of residence life atl Iuniversity in Louisiana. The 
Petitioner describes it as a newly created position tasked with developing a new "Office of Residence 
Life" at the university, and states that the position involves all aspects of administrative management 
for residence life at the university, including student wellness initiatives, emergency on-call services, 
and facilities management. 
We note that a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition, and we generally 
will not consider events that arose after the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The purpose of an RFE is to elicit information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is 
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (b)(8), (b)(l2). A petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform with USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The Petitioner also submitted a copy of his academic transcripts for his master of arts degree in public policy and 
international affairs froml I university inl IP A, completed in 2013, but did not provide a copy of his 
diploma. The Petitioner was also enrolled in a Ph.D. program in political science atl IUniversity at the 
time of filing the petition. 
2 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's initial filing did not discuss 
this specific job opportunity, which appears to have arisen after the filing of the petition. Nevertheless, 
because the endeavor as articulated in response to the RFE-to establish and direct a new residential 
life department at a university-relates to the initially submitted evidence of providing university 
residential student services and continuing the Petitioner's "current work of helping college students 
enrich their educational experience," we will consider the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 
articulated in the RFE response. 
As to the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director found that the Petitioner did 
not establish either the substantial merit or the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
Specifically, the Director stated the Petitioner did not provide a sufficiently detailed description of his 
proposed endeavor, and instead solely described the field in which the Petitioner intends to work. The 
Director stated that, without a sufficiently defined endeavor, the Petitioner had not established that his 
endeavor has substantial merit, and further that the evidence is insufficient to establish the potential 
prospective impact of the endeavor, and thus whether it has national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not fully analyze the evidence in the record in 
reaching this conclusion. The Petitioner contends that the evidence submitted in the RFE response 
specifically describes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to build a university residence life office at
I I University, provides details about the job duties for the Petitioner as the director of this 
office, the need for this office, and the goals the Petitioner wishes to achieve through the creation of 
this office. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that this endeavor has substantial merit because the 
Petitioner seeks to increase the well-being of the student population and provide them the tools, skills, 
and support necessary to ensure a higher likelihood of graduation. 
A petitioner may demonstrate their proposed endeavor's substantial merit "in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education." Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although we acknowledge the initially submitted evidence did not articulate a 
proposed endeavor other than that of continuing in his occupation, we conclude that there is sufficient 
evidence in the record regarding the Petitioner's plans to direct and establish this residential life office 
to analyze the endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. Moreover, based upon the 
Petitioner's statements regarding his proposed endeavor and the evidence in the record relating to the 
impact that quality residential life services can have on student success and well-being, we agree with 
the Petitioner that he has established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. 
We withdraw the Director's finding that the proposed endeavor lacks substantial merit and conclude 
that the Petitioner has established this requirement. 
We tum next to whether the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance. In making this determination, we consider the endeavor's potential prospective impact. 
Id. An endeavor that has national or global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances, may have national 
importance. Id. Additionally, an endeavor that is regionally focused may nevertheless have national 
importance, such as an endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area. Id. at 890. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the proposed endeavor has the potential to have a substantial 
impact on the local economy. The Petitioner states thatl ILouisiana, the city in which 
I I University is located, is an economically depressed area, and that both the city and the 
university have recently suffered significant damage from two major hurricanes in 2020, along with 
the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner notes that the new Office of Residence Life 
will include 14 staff members and that the office may help the university attract a larger student body 
and thus have positive economic effects on the area. However, the Petitioner has not established that 
the creation of 14 jobs will result in the type of "substantial positive economic effects" that are required 
for national importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Additionally, we note that many, 
if not most, of these jobs appear to be part-time on-campus jobs intended for university students, rather 
than foll-time permanent positions. The Petitioner also states that his role is the only foll-time position 
anticipated. We conclude that the Petitioner's claim that the new Office of Residence Life will have 
a broad impact on the economy such that it rises to the level of national importance is not supported 
by the evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner also asserts that by ensuring student safety and well-being and providing students with 
support and tools to help them graduate, the proposed endeavor will have a broad impact by increasing 
graduation rates and thus leading to a better educated workforce. The Petitioner farther contends on 
appeal that the endeavor has national importance because it has the potential to attract students from 
around the nation, based upon the university's high quality of life. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that 
the potential to increase student enrollment and retention, and help provide students the tools to 
graduate, will enhance societal welfare and cultural and artistic enrichment based upon students 
studying these areas or engaging in them after graduation. Again, these claims are not supported by 
the evidence in the record. In determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will 
work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the potential prospective impact of the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. The Petitioner states 
that I !university has an enrollment of 5,882 students and houses approximately 900 students. 
While access to high quality residential student services may influence graduation rates and higher 
education overall, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that would support the conclusion that his 
specific proposed endeavor-to establish this office at I µniversity-will increase graduation 
rates, enhance societal welfare, or increase cultural and artistic enrichment on a scale that would be 
commensurate with national importance. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director that the evidence does not establish 
the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Although the record reflects the 
Petitioner's intention to provide valuable residential student services to the students at I I 
University, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information or evidence to establish that the 
prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In 
Matter ofDhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of 
national importance because they would not extend beyond his students to impact the field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the same is true. The Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his university and its student population to impact the economy 
or the field of residential life student services at a level commensurate with national importance. 
4 
The Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by 
the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We acknowledge 
the Petitioner's arguments on appeal as to the second and third prongs of Dhanasar but, having found 
that the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong, we reserve our 
opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the remaining Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 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"). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5