dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Capital Formation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 19, 2024 In Re: 31523584 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who describes himself as "an expert in human capital formation," 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. Additionally, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and 
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 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 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 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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that he has a doctoral degree in Political and Social Sciences and 
Communication from the in Belgium. Accordingly, the record 
supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has an advanced degree per the requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
The first prong under Dhanasar, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is "[t]o attract more American students to STEM fields and bridge 
the gender gap in these fields through the non-profit organization he has already established in the 
U.S." He explains that his area of expertise, human capital formation, "is concerned with developing 
important abilities and skills among populations of people in order to support their growth and 
wellbeing." 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred 
in stating that the "field of STEM has substantial merit" because STEM, which is an acronym for 
science, technology, engineering, and math, is not a field on its own and is not his proposed endeavor. 
However, any error by the Director here was harmless, as the Director determined that the Petitioner 
met this criterion and we agree that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to "attract more ... students to 
STEM fields" and bridge the gender gap in STEM-related occupations falls within one or more of the 
areas contemplated by Dhanasar and has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Director concluded 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor because he had 
not shown economic implications beyond his own organization and clients. Also, the Director 
indicated that while the Petitioner's profession in human capital formation may have value, he had not 
shown that his role as director of his nonprofit organization would have a broad impact outside his 
own place of employment. The Director additionally concluded that the Petitioner had not provided 
a clear description of his proposed endeavor or any evidence that he had influenced the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director misunderstood his proposed endeavor and 
mischaracterized and failed to fully consider the evidence. He asserts the Director mistakenly stated 
that he claimed his endeavor would directly benefit the national economy. He emphasizes that there 
are indirect economic effects of his work but that his proposed endeavor, which involves work in a 
nonprofit organization, is not focused on direct economic impacts. He also contends the Director erred 
in stating that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor, without acknowledging the evidence he filed initially and in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE). He further alleges that the Director mistakenly indicated that 
the description of the proposed endeavor is unclear and vague, and erred in stating that the evidence 
did not contain details showing the Petitioner had significantly influenced the field of endeavor, which 
is a consideration for the second prong of Dhanasar rather than the first. The Petitioner has clearly 
defined his proposed endeavor, and we withdraw the Director's conclusion to the contrary.2 
Additionally, as the Petitioner correctly notes, evidence that an individual's work has influenced the 
field of endeavor relates to whether they are well-positioned to advance the endeavor under 
Dhanasar 's second prong, rather than national importance. Nevertheless, for the reasons provided 
below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, 
we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. 
The Petitioner initially submitted evidence regarding his education, past experience, and proposed 
endeavor. In his personal statement, he discussed his experience and training in "elaboration, 
implementation and assessment of economics, politics and social policies" to promote "economic 
growth and social justice in developed and developing countries." He recalled prior work in Africa, 
Europe, and Israel to help implement public policies promoting wellbeing and training leaders to 
promote social justice and fight antisemitism and racism. Additionally, he noted he had organized and 
spoken at conferences and published several books. Regarding his proposed endeavor "[t]o attract 
more American students to STEM fields and bridge the gender gap in these fields" through his 
nonprofit organization, the the Petitioner 
discussed plans including trainings, summer camps, open houses, scholarships, coaching, and 
mentoring for students. He also mentioned plans to conduct research on STEM education and identify 
strategies to increase interest in STEM fields. The Petitioner explained that he has already collaborated 
withl Iin Texas to motivate and support students in STEM fields through mentoring, 
tutoring, advising, supplemental instruction, and online resources. He indicated that he will also offer 
consulting services to STEM students so that they have the skills to open their own businesses. He 
2 The Director also appears to have mistakenly referred to "the electrical engineering field" and "the field of brand 
strategy," neither of which relates to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. These errors were harmless, as we agree with the 
Director's ultimate determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
but we withdraw the references to other fields not at issue in this case. 
3 
stated he has filed paperwork to establish a nonprofit organization in New York and intends to operate 
on a national level eventually. 
The evidence shows the Petitioner has established a registered nonprofit organization in Texas and 
collaborated withl Ia community college with several campuses in Texas, to support 
students in STEM fields at that institution. He submitted letters and other documentation from officials 
at about the (the project) about the success of the 
project at one campus during the spring 2023 semester. The documents show the 
project provided "embedded supplemental instruction" in five STEM-related courses, for which 
gave "stipends for faculty fellows and salaries for part-time" instructors. One letter from I I 
I I notes 214 students attended courses taught by faculty fellows, 231 students attended 
supplemental review sessions, and an estimated 180 students were contacted in outreach events. The 
letter states the "success rate" in "targeted STEM sections" was 82.2 percent, as opposed to 65 .1 
percent in other courses, but does not explain the meaning of "success rate" in this context. The 
documents also show the project provided $500 scholarships to 20 recipients, 11 of whom were female 
students. According to documents froml Ithe institution plans to continue the project 
and expand it to additional campuses in the future. The Petitioner's evidence also shows he has filed 
an application as a foreign not-for-profit corporation in the state of New York. The evidence does not 
indicate any further activities in New York. 
The Petitioner states the United States "is losing the leadership in STEM fields to the benefit of China 
and India because the U.S. is not training enough students who remain working in these fields in the 
U.S." and that the gender gap in these fields needs to be filled to ensure long-term growth in STEM. 
He has submitted additional evidence relating to the importance of STEM education in general and 
the role of STEM fields in improving a nation's standards of living, economic growth, and 
competitiveness. One article notes low unemployment rates and higher median earnings in the STEM 
labor force as compared to non-STEM jobs and states women make up about 34 percent of STEM 
workers. Another article discusses how women and girls are underrepresented in STEM fields and 
the potential benefits of narrowing that gender gap. Reports from the National Science & Technology 
Council indicate the importance of investment and research to ensure an "effective and inclusive 
STEM education" and its impact on innovation, prosperity, and security in the United States. The 
evidence mentions that STEM education and the inclusion of women and girls in STEM fields are 
important. However, the Petitioner has not shown the national importance of his specific proposed 
endeavor as implemented through his nonprofit organization. 
In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[a ]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. The evidence the Petitioner submitted shows that he 
provided fonding and support for students in STEM fields at al ITexas community college. 
During one semester, he provided $500 scholarships for 20 students and funded a project to provide 
students with extra support in five classes, plus supplemental instruction and guidance outside of class. 
But he has not shown this collaboration with I I has broader implications beyond the 
students in the program at that institution. Although he has expressed an intent to expand operations 
into New York and later into all 50 states, the evidence does not indicate any progress toward this goal 
aside from filing an application to establish a nonprofit organization in New York. He does not discuss 
specific educational institutions he plans to collaborate with in New York or specifically describe any 
4 
other planned work there. Additionally, though a focus of his proposed endeavor is on bridging the 
gender gap in STEM fields, the evidence does not show that his past or planned work with 
addresses this matter. Although the evidence relating to the scholarships he awarded indicates that 
applications from female students would receive priority for some of the scholarships, it also shows 
that 11 female students and 9 male students ultimately received scholarships. The documentation 
relating to does not otherwise indicate plans to provide supports or services specifically for 
female students in STEM fields such that the Petitioner's work through the nonprofit might have 
broader implications among the STEM workforce overall, rather than an impact limited to the 
individual students participating in the I program. He also did not provide data to 
indicate that the number of students involved in the project at I is a significant 
percentage of that institution's student population or of STEM students as a whole such that the impact 
on their education might be nationally important. 
We also stated in Dhanasar that "[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. Although the Petitioner 
argues on appeal that the Director mistakenly focused on the potential economic impact of his 
proposed endeavor, he indicated in his business plan that his nonprofit organization would create a 
total of 1,600 jobs around the country by the end of its fifth year and projected total revenues of 
$1,820,000 by the end of year one and $9,100,000 by the end of year five. However, he did not present 
any supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, may have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects for the nation. He did not establish the significance of the revenue 
projections to show that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, he did not 
demonstrate the relevance of the job creation estimates to show that such future staffing levels would 
provide substantial economic benefits to the I I Texas, region, any future locations in New York 
or other states, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant 
population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, 
either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the 
limited benefits provided to its prospective students, clients, employees, and the educational 
institution(s) involved in collaborations, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications 
rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic 
effects. 3 
The Petitioner emphasizes his education, experience, and expertise in the field of human capital 
formation and his success in prior projects relating to poverty alleviation, social justice, and anti­
racism work. He has submitted evidence of his published articles and books, role as a speaker at 
3 Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, 
not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests but also have sufficiently broad potential 
implications to demonstrate national importance. See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Here, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor focuses on increasing female 
representation in STEM fields and providing general support to students in STEM, but he does not suggest that his own 
endeavor falls within a STEM profession. 
5 
conferences and meetings, and leadership during trainings and mission trips. The evidence includes, 
but is not limited to, reference letters regarding his past work with other organizations and articles 
about his projects. However, the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities 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. The evidence relating to the Petitioner's 
education and past projects in other areas does not indicate that his current proposed endeavor 
promoting and supporting STEM education through is nationally important. Furthermore, 
although the record also includes letters of appreciation for the Petitioner's support, including from a 
dentist whom the Petitioner assisted when she was a student and from I !student recipients 
of the 2023 scholscholarship, 4 the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work 
rather than limited to the specific students he has helped. Again, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior 
work and accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his work promoting and supporting STEM education and 
working to fill the gender gap there through his nonprofit organization would rise to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record here does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor 
of attracting more American students to STEM fields and bridging the gender gap in those fields 
through his nonprofit organization will impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that his 
proposed endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning his eligibility under the second and third prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 of L-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The student letters contain similar formatting and are unsigned. They carry limited evidentiary weight. 
6