dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Humanitarian Aid

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33961079 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, ___________ seeks second preference immigrant classification 
(EB-2) for the Beneficiary, its senior advisor, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Beneficiary 
qualified for classification as an advanced degree professional and his endeavor has substantial merit, 
the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 's endeavor is of national importance, that he is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 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 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, they must then establish 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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver pet1t10ns. 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 the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 qualification as an 
advanced degree professional. The Beneficiary has the U.S. equivalent of a master's degree in 
economics (with a concentration in environmental economics) from I I in 
Colombia and a bachelor's degree in agricultural science at _______ in Haiti. The 
remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has met the Dhanasar' s three prongs to demonstrate 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner,~-------------------------' is a nonprofit organization 
that provides essential food and supplies to the world's vulnerable populations. The Beneficiary's 
proposed endeavor is to work for the Petitioner as a senior advisor of monitoring, evaluation, 
accountability and learning (MEAL). His role is to oversee the Petitioner's portfolio of food security 
and livelihoods programs fonded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its 
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), "[conduct] monitoring and evaluating assistance to food 
security projects in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Uganda" and provide accurate data to the funders 
in this humanitarian work. 
The Director concluded that the Beneficiary's endeavor has substantial merit but not national 
importance under the Dhanasar's first prong. 2 Specifically, the Director concluded that the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor of working as a senior advisor offer benefits that 
extend beyond the company to the humanitarian field more broadly or show that the level of 
employment will have the potential to provide substantial positive economic effects to the region 
where the company is located or to the nation. We agree with the Director. 
To evaluate whether the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we focus 
on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake and look to evidence 
documenting its "potential prospective impact." Id. We also stated 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. 
1 See Flores v. Garland. 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts to 
conclude the national interest waiver determination is discretionary in nature). 
2 The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar' s analytical 
framework. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert any errors made by the Director in denying the petition. 
Instead, the Petitioner reiterates same claims made in its initial filing and RFE response that the 
Beneficiary's endeavor has national importance as it "broadly impacts the humanitarian field" by 
"increasing the overall effectiveness and impact of [the Petitioner's food security and livelihood] 
programs" and resulting in "job creation for young people in various nations and economic growth." 
The Petitioner also contends that the endeavor is "contributing to global prosperity and stability" and 
"well-aligned with the United States' commitment to promoting human rights, dignity, and equality 
both domestically and internationally." However, the Petitioner does not provide any new information 
or evidence on appeal to support these claims. 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner claimed that the national importance of the Beneficiary's endeavor 
is evident from its mission and nature of work in saving lives of children and fostering "self-sufficient 
communities across the world." The record shows that the Beneficiary's duties mainly include 
managing "standardized M&E (monitoring and evaluation) systems in a global food security and 
livelihoods portfolio"; developing "M&E guidelines, protocols, templates, and activity schedules for 
field-based M&E teams to ensure quality and regularity of program monitoring data"; and 
collaborating with M&E working groups to research efficiencies and best practices. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner appears to refocus the 
Beneficiary's endeavor from working as a M&E senior advisor in advancing the humanitarian field to 
adopting and integrating "cutting-edge technologies" such as "Machine Leaming, Natural Language 
Processing (NLP), Generative AI, and Computer Vision" into M&E activities. The Petitioner claimed 
that the Beneficiary is "a foreign national with special skills in AI [ Artificial Intelligence] seeking to 
continue his work in the United States" and such endeavor is aligned with the government's initiatives 
in promoting innovation and competition and advancing American technological leadership in the 
field of AI. 
Although we acknowledge that the Beneficiary's role as a senior advisor is important to the company's 
work in feeding the vulnerable population and alleviating poverty, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the economic implications and humanitarian assistance resulting from the company's operations 
would be directly attributable to the Beneficiary's particular role as a senior advisor. The issue here 
is not the broader implications of the company's humanitarian work but rather the potential 
prospective impact of the Beneficiary's specific proposed work as a M&E senior advisor. 
We recognize the value of data monitoring and evaluation in non-profit management and importance 
of humanitarian work by both domestically and internationally; however, in 
determining national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner largely relied on the industry articles and 
reports to claim that the fields in which the Beneficiary intends to work, whether it is the humanitarian 
and food insecurity field or M&E work in general, has national importance instead of focusing on the 
Beneficiary's specific endeavor. None of the articles and reports specifically mention the 
Beneficiary's name or his work or discuss the government's interest in promoting the use of the 
Beneficiary's specific innovation or solutions. Therefore, such evidence does not demonstrate that the 
endeavor's prospective impact has "national or even global implications within a particular field, such 
as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or "significant 
3 
potential to employ U.S. workers or ha[ve] other substantial positive economic effects" as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. at 889-90. 
The record contains numerous letters of recommendation from the Beneficiary's work colleagues at 
and collaborators from USAID and World Bank, who attest to his expertise, 
understanding, and knowledge in M&E of humanitarian programming. 3 Although the Beneficiary's 
work colleagues praise his work in "research and advancement of M&E techniques" and assert that 
his work "advances scientific knowledge and promotes the efficient distribution of humanitarian 
relief," they do not sufficiently address his specific future endeavor with persuasive details. The 
Petitioner also submitted the Beneficiary's articles published on Linkedin and FSN (Food Security 
Network) discussing usage of AI or NLP in M&E work. But the Petitioner has not provided 
independent and corroborating evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's expertise in M&E has 
broader implications in his field at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner 
must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 893. Here, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate how the 
Beneficiary's proposed endeavor stands to extend beyond his employer to impact the humanitarian 
field more broadly on a scale commensurate with national importance. Nor has the Petitioner shown 
that the Beneficiary's particular research or other future projects offer innovations that contribute to 
advancements in the M&E practice, or otherwise has broader implications for that field. Accordingly, 
the Beneficiary's proposed work as a senior advisor for the Petitioner does not meet the national 
importance element of the Dhanasar' s first prong and the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, further analysis of his eligibility 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for or otherwise merits 
a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 In addition, the Beneficiary's knowledge, skills, and experience in the field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4