dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Homeland Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11271452 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 12, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. On appeal , the Petitioner submits 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 immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S . employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. .. [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion,2 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 of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Tramportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a 
national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 4 
Regarding his claim of eligibility und~e_r_D_h_c_m_c_1s_a_r_' s_f_ir_s_t....__ro_n .......... ._t_h_e_P_e_ti_ti_o_n_er_1_· n_d_ic_-a_t_es_t_h_a_t _h_e_"_cu_rr_en_t_l..., 
works as a Security Officer for the 
.... I ~-----------______,,.l" and asserts that he "wishes to employ his expertise to strengthen 
the homeland security of the United States." He describes his prospective endeavor, in relevant part: 
[The Petitioner] views the U.S. as the country where he can most effectively and 
productively employ his expertise in counterterrorism; security management; security 
risk assessment; intelligence gathering; armed group trends; ethnic conflicts; conflict 
resolution; peacekeeping; disarmament, demobilization, and rehabilitation. 
[He] is primed to provide consulting or policy advice for any number of federal 
agencies, such as USAID and the U.S. Department of State's bureau for Population, 
Refugees, and Migration .... 
The Petitioner farther asserts "his experience qualifies him to work in federal, state, and local 
government agencies or law enforcement [or] for a myriad of security agencies" such as "Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or the U.S. Marshall Service." 
The Director concluded in his denial that the Beneficiary's prospective work within the above listed 
fields has substantial merit. However, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
has established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor. The first prong in Dhanasar, which 
requires a showing of both substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake. Considering the totality of the evidence, the record 
does not substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor(s). 
The Petitioner presents a high-level listing of diverse areas of national concern to the United States, 
( e.g., counterterrorism, peacekeeping, rehabilitation, and conflict resolution), but does not sufficiently 
describe his proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner indicates that he is primed to provide 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner submitted evidence to establish his eligibility for the benefit sought. While we may not discuss every document 
submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
policy advice or consulting services to federal agencies "about existing ethnic rivalries and other 
conflicts that threaten American aid workers." However, generally describing broad areas of 
experience and knowledge and simply stating the Petitioner might consult with or provide advice to 
federal agencies without evidence is insufficient to establish his proposed endeavor, and that it will 
have substantial merit and national importance. He states in his response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), and on appeal, that he is already employed by I l and as such he "is 
already employed withl I employer with a substantial presence in the 
United States." However, he does not discuss in sufficient detail how his employment at I I I I demonstrates both substantial merit and national importance. 
The Petitioner also alternatively asserts that he might work for local, state, or federal law enforcement 
agencies, or for "a myriad of security agencies" performing public security or policing activities, the 
substance of which has not been adequately described in the record. He notes in his RFE response 
that "the United States has witnessed an upsurge in violent public demonstrations that require the 
knowledge of security experts and experienced police officers ... which underscore the need for 
talented experts in the field of public security in order to maintain our peaceful way of living and our 
economic prosperity." Nonetheless, without more information about his public security and policing 
expertise and how he will apply it in the United States, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established 
his proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the United States will have 
substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance 
of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an opinion letter from Dr. P-M-, professor of political science a~,_ __ ___, 
University, who concludes that the Petitioner "satisfies the [Dhanasar] first prong, because his proposed 
employment is in a field (security) that is both of substantial intrinsic merit and national in scope." The 
professor appears to conflate the eligibility requirements in the Dhanasar first prong, in part, with the 
framework put forth in Matter of New York State Dep't ofTransp. ("NYSDOT'), 22 I&N Dec. 215.5 As 
discussed, in announcing the Dhanasar framework we vacated NYSDOT. Here, the Petitioner's reliance 
on the professor's conclusion that a petitioner may meet the first Dhanasar prong based solely on the 
substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of a particular field is misplaced. 
The professor also discusses the expertise the Petitioner has gained through various security-related 
assignments while he was employed first byl I police force, and later byl I 
However, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 
I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Though the 
professor opines that the Petitioner's "work combating terrorists is invaluable, his education impressive, 
5 The NYSDOT framework looked first to see if a petitioner has shown that the area of employment is of "substantial intrinsic 
merit." 22 l&N Dec. at 217. Next, a petitioner had to establish that any proposed benefit from the individual's endeavors will 
be "national in scope." Id. Finally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a 
labor certification were required for the foreign national. Id. 
4 
and his promise for future accomplishment undeniable," he does not sufficiently identify, analyze, or 
discuss the Petitioner's prospective endeavor in the United States.6 
For these reasons, we conclude that the professor's letter is not probative towards establishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l , Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with 
other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. For the sake of brevity, we will 
not address other deficiencies within the professor's analyses. 
Further, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 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. Without more 
detail regarding the specific endeavor in which the Petitioner will pursue, we conclude that he has not 
offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
national importance such as significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Absent sufficient evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from the Petitioner's consulting projects would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, the Petitioner's 
proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. Accordingly, 
he has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar , therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 Similarly, the Petitioner has provided reference letters from current and former colleagues who outline his work 
accomplishments and put forth general statements that assert his services would be beneficial to the United States. While the 
letter writers hold the Petitioner in high regard, the submitted letters do not provide sufficient information regarding the specific 
endeavor( s) that the Petitioner will engage in or explain the national importance of his proposed work under the Dhana sar' s 
first prong. 
5