dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Student Recruitment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2025 In Re: 31068365 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance or that it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 (USCTS) 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. 
TT. ADV AN CED DEGREE 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for an advanced degree professional classification by virtue of 
foreign education that he claims is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree and two U.S. master's 
degree, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Director determined that the Petitioner was 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. After reviewing the record, we disagree 
with the Director's determination. 2 
A petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner possesses a 
"United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of 
baccalaureate." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced 
degree, the petition must be accompanied by "[a ]n official academic record showing that the 
[individual] has a United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Moreover, any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation, and a certification from the translator that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate, and that they are competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
To demonstrate that he has the claimed degrees, the Petitioner submitted a copy of his relevant 
diplomas and the accompanying addendum for both degrees, along with translations for all the 
aforementioned documents. The petition did not contain the required certificates of translation for 
these documents. As the academic records were not translated in accordance with the plain language 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they do not have any evidentiary weight and will not be 
considered. As the academic records are required to demonstrate a qualifying degree, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated he has the requirements for the visa classification. 
In light of the above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
that he is an advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Goining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 The issue of the Petitioner's degrees were not a ground of dismissal in the Director's decision. Nonetheless, we exercise 
"de novo review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion" and on appeal look "at the record anew and [our] decision 
may address new issues that were not raised or resolved in the prior decision." See generally AAO Practice Manual, Ch. 
3.4, https://www.uscis.gov/aao-practice-manual. 
2 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
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, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's business, I Ispecializes "in recruiting international 
students, including STEM students for U.S. higher education institutions." The evidence provided does 
not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. 
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 "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. 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. To evaluate 
whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of their 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
Here, the Petitioner has not adequately described how his business will have a broader impact on the 
field of international student recruitment beyond its clients. The Petitioner argues on appeal that his 
proposed work is nationally important because "[t]he United States has an urgent need for international 
STEM students." Yet the brief and the record do not explain how his business would impact the 
overall field more broadly beyond its clients on the level of national importance. The majority of the 
brief argues that it is important for the United States to recruit international students and asserts that 
as the proposed endeavor supports that effort, it is nationally important. However, these arguments 
ignore the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar. It is not the importance of the field that determines 
an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a 
level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The brief neglects 
to explain how the Petitioner's individual business will affect the overall international student 
recruitment field on nationally important level. Petitioners must establish their capacity to 
3 
significantly benefit the industry or field as a whole, in accordance with the prevailing legal 
standards. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890-93. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either.3 The Petitioner provided 
reports and articles on international students, letters from university clients, client contracts, lists of 
student placements, articles about the company, and copies of their promotional materials. 
The contracts, student placement lists, and promotional materials provided speak to the Petitioner's 
past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in the international 
student recruitment field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong 
when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The articles concerning the Petitioner's business discuss the company's past experiences placing 
students in many different countries. They contain little mention of the current proposed endeavor, to 
recruit students into U.S. universities, with the exception of a few statements about the company's J-
1 and F-1 approval rates around 2018. As with the evidence analyzed above, this speaks more to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework regarding the Petitioner's ability to advance the proposed 
endeavor. The other articles and reports are of little evidentiary value as they do not address the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications in the international 
student recruitment field in a way that implicates national importance. 
Next, the letters from the Petitioner's university clients are insufficient to establish that the endeavor 
is nationally important. The majority of the letters speak to the writers' professional relationship with 
the Petitioner's company, the work the company completed, and how it has helped them recruit 
students. They do not stipulate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will contribute to the 
international student recruitment field on a nationally important level. The appeal brief contends that 
the letter from Secretary-Treasurer of I I speaks to the broader 
significance of the proposed endeavor. It highlights a section of the letter that states that the 
Petitioner's work is "a benefit not only to foreign students looking for a quality education, but also to 
education and universities in American that seek greater cultural experience and diversity in their 
institutions." We disagree that this statement speaks to the proposed endeavor's impact on the field. 
Rather, the section is describing how the proposed endeavor can benefit its clients, the universities it 
recruits for, by providing students from international backgrounds. The evidence submitted does not 
establish that the proposed endeavor will have a nationally important impact on the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. We note that in the 
appeal filing and the response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted several articles, client contracts, 
and other documents that originated after the filing of the petition. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements 
of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
4 
Here, however, the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue 
creation. The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that the Petitioner's company will reach a total of 
37 employees in year five, with payroll expenses growing from $305,000 in year one to $2,604,406 in 
year five. He also projected generating $29,476 in net profit in year one, increasing to $118,633 in 
year five. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately 
clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the record contain evidence to support the 
business plan's financial projections. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the 
evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably true, where the determination of truth is 
made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality. See id. The lack of supporting details here detracts from the credibility and probative 
value of the business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that the proposed endeavor will result in substantial economic growth on the level of 
national importance. The record does not illustrate how creating 37 jobs and generating net profit as 
projected in the business plan, would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national 
importance. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. 
See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner makes additional arguments regarding the economic impact of international students 
on the U.S. economy, in particular on university budgets and rural schools. The appeal brief avers 
that international students contribute to the U.S. economy, help subsidize the cost of college for U.S. 
students, and create jobs through added demand on their localities, particularly in rural areas. This 
argument implies that the proposed endeavor is important because the economic impact of 
international student recruitment overall is important. As outlined previously, our focus is how the 
specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance, it is not the 
importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. 
While the Petitioner has presented evidence of how he has helped his individual clients make more 
money, he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that his recruitment efforts in particular 
will have such an impact that they constitute national importance due to their economic impact. The 
Petitioner has therefore not submitted sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, 
the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond his clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. He has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
5 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments 
concerning eligibility under 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 ofL-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, we find 
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