dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Studies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21025876 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 13, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor of international studies, 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) . After a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may, as a matter of 
discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates : (1) that the noncitizen's 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but 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. Specifically, although the Director found that the proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance , the Director concluded that the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal , first withdrawing the Director's conclusion that the proposed 
endeavor would have national importance , then concluding that the record did not satisfy the first two 
Dhanasar prongs, reserving our opinion on the third Dhanasarprong . See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
8 8 8-91. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that we misapplied Dhanasar and that the 
preponderance of evidence satisfies the Dhanasarprongs. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 . Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, we withdrew the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor would have 
national importance. Specifically, we noted that, although the record indicates the endeavor would 
entail the Petitioner working, partly, as an assistant professor in international studies and, partly, as an 
international relations researcher, it does not establish how much time she will devote to teaching, as 
opposed to conducting research. We concluded that, to the extent that the endeavor would entail 
teaching international relations, "the record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 
such activities would impact the field of international relations more broadly, as opposed to being 
limited to the specific students and university she may serve." We noted that, similarly, we concluded 
the petitioner in Dhanasar did not establish by the preponderance of the evidence that his proposed 
teaching activities meet the national impmiance element of the first prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 893. 
We further noted that the record does not establish how much time the Petitioner intends to devote to 
research while also pursuing her consulting, analyst, peer review, and editorial board activities. We 
noted that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's research is "state-of-the-art" or how it 
provides "novel insights," given that the record establishes "that many others study, publish, and offer 
their research-based perspectives on similar topics" to those published by the Petitioner. We also 
observed that the record does not contain documentary evidence to support assertions that the 
Petitioner's research has been funded by the Defense Department's U.S. Southern Command. We 
further observed that the few letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's future research 
plans provide generalized and unsubstantiated descriptions, such as "groundbreaking," "influential," 
and "innovative," without elaborating on how the proposed endeavor would break new ground, 
influence the field of international relations research, and provide innovations that rise to the level of 
national importance. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)(holding that 
an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). Because the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's international relations teachings would rise to the level 
of national importance, and because the record does not establish that the Petitioner's international 
relations research would rise to the level of national importance, we withdrew the Director's finding 
to the contrary. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner states that she provided her proposed endeavor in her personal 
statement, submitted in support of the petition: "In the coming years, I intend to extend my research 
on ______ foreign policy to support civil society as the cornerstone of improved 
maintenance of public affairs in emerging societies and countries." The Petitioner adds that, in that 
statement, she further stated thatherresearch would use "new and more advanced approaches to obtain 
a proper database of I segmented by media, topic, target audience, and reach, that 
greatly improves the works of all analysts studying I I" The Petitioner 
2 
further asserts on motion that "specific details of [the Petitioner's] employment pursuits or future 
activities, whether she is employed as an assistant professor, adjunct professor, or international 
relations researcher" are irrelevant to the issue of determining whether the proposed endeavor would 
have national importance. The remainder of the motion's discussion of the first Dhanasar prong 
characterizes aspects of our prior analysis as irrelevant. 
In dete1mining national impmiance, 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 
"specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Dhanasarprovided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by 
the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from ce1iain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that 
have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
The only evidence of record that the Petitioner discusses, on motion to reconsider, is her own one­
page personal statement submitted in support of the petition. Otherwise, the Petitioner cites the appeal 
dismissal notice, Dhanasar, and a non-precedent decision from 2018. 1 Without more, the Petitioner's 
statement, quoted above, does not provide sufficient details, corroborated by objective evidence, to 
establish how the proposed research endeavor would have "national or even global implications within 
a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. at 889-
90. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider does not establish that the proposed endeavor would rise 
to the level of national imp01iance under the preponderance of evidence standard and that we erred by 
withdrawing the Director's conclusion to the contrary. See id; see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375-76(AAO 2010). 
Because the Petitioner has not established on motion that our decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision, we will dismiss the motion to 
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3), (4). Further, because the Petitioner has not satisfied the first 
Dhanasar prong on motion, we need not address whether she has satisfied the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs, and we hereby reserve them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 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"); 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). 
1 The Petitioner refers to ournon-precedentdecision, specifically quoting its statement that our analysis ofa proposed endeavor 
"is not limited by a petitioner's occupation or educational status at the time o ffiling" and that "we consider [petitioners'] current 
and prospective job offers in this analysis only as they illustrate the capacity in which [they intend] to work." This decision 
was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the 
individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and 
applicable law and policy. In the Petitioner's case, in our prior decision we considered the Petitioner's current and prospective 
jobs in thecontextoftheextentto which theymayillustratethecapacityin which she intends to work-teaching international 
relations, researchingintemationalrelations, or a combinationofthetwo. 
3 
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 eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4