dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Language Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 28, 2023 In Re: 28623375 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in teaching foreign language, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 
884. Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining Dhanasar 
prongs. 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 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). 
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. Next, a 
petitioner 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, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states that she is an experienced language teacher. In describing her experience, the 
Petitioner states that from 2014 to 2018 she worked as a private tutor in Russia, and from 2018 to 2021 
she worked in the United States as an au pair. She also has several months experience teaching 
German during an internship, and one year as an au pair in Germany. Her proposed endeavor is to 
"start a school for teaching all Americans Russian and German language through various innovative 
methods." The Petitioner states that her proposed business will offer online and in-person learning 
and will teach "through real travel experience and cultural immersion." In her proposed endeavor she 
intends to create employment for language teachers and hopes to expand her business so "that one day 
at least 30% of Americans can speak a second language." 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a personal 
statement describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, as 
well as recommendation and support letters. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement, evidence of the 
Beneficiary's business registration ofl Ia business plan, evidence of investment 
in the business, letters from prospective clients, and expert opinion letters. 
In her business plan, the Petitioner states that she will serve as general manager and head teacher with 
I I The business plan states that the Petitioner will offer instruction to children 
and adults in German and Russian language, as well as in English as a second language classes. 
Services will be offered to individuals, as well as "public schools, associations, NGOs, and 
companies." The business plan states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will generate numerous 
benefits "for the quality of life among the U.S. population, as well as the U.S. economy, such as the 
advanced employability of a sizable populations segment and enriched cultural understanding and 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree awarded in 2014. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
2 
integration." The Petitioner states that, by its fifth year, the business will employ a total of 14 
employees, with total sales projected at $1.4 million. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, he 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national 
importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification. 
The Director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have a 
regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national importance, or that the 
Petitioner's work will have broader implications in her field of endeavor, going beyond her own school 
and clients. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national 
interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective 
contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation 
of jobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. The Director noted the 
Petitioner's business plan and registration documents were dated after the initial filing and did not 
support the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(12). See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). The Director also noted that the some of 
the letters submitted to document the Petitioner's employment did not contain the address of the author 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l ). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: a grant deed for property that she asserts will be the location 
of her business and proposed endeavor, the addresses missing from the previously submitted letters, 
and copies of evidence already in the record. She does not assert any specific error in law or policy in 
the Director's decision, but requests a second review of the expert opinion letters. 
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. 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The relevant question is not the importance of the field, 
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 Id. In Dhanasar, we farther 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. 
3 
I 
The Petitioner submits recommendation letters describing her past experiences and achievements, as 
well as support for her proposed endeavor. 3 However, the Petitioner does not explain how her 
achievements have had a broad impact in the field oflanguage instruction. A November 3, 2022, letter 
from~-~--------' founder ofl Istates that the Petitioner's "ability to teach German, 
Russian and English is particularly important and valuable for my company and me personally because 
much of the training I do is global." While the author discusses the impact the Petitioner's teaching 
has had on him personally, including his company, the letter does not provide details about the broader 
national impact of the Petitioner's achievements. A November 29, 2022, letter from I 
discusses his experience as an Olympian interacting with multilingual athletes who excelled because 
of their language abilities. However, the author does not state that the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor would have a role in improving the performance of Olympic athletes or otherwise have a 
national impact. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field 
have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
A November 28, 2020, letter froml an acquaintance of the Petitioner, states that the 
Petitioner's teaching skills "would greatly assist the many immigrants coming to America to assimilate 
culturally, to cross language barriers and inevitably become highly productive people and assets of the 
United States." However, the letter does not identify how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor 
would differ from other services already existing and available or would produce an impact rising to 
the level of national importance. Even considering the letters collectively and in the totality of 
circumstances, we still conclude that they do not support a finding that her specific proposed endeavor 
has national importance. 
The Petitioner also submits her business plan to support the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. As noted, to establish national importance, the Petitioner must demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's impact. 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. at 889. Although the Petitioner states that 
her experience in teaching languages will contribute to the U.S. economy, she has not supported these 
assertions with sufficient independent, objective evidence. The projections of the Petitioner's 
company's revenue and job creation as stated in the business plan are also unsupported in the record. 
On appeal the Petitioner states that the business will operate out of her residence but does not explain 
how she would be able to provide in-person instruction reaching a national level from this location. 
Nor does she explain her plan to develop online instruction. The evidence does not suggest that the 
Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States. 
Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond 
benefitting her own company and clients or have broader implications within the field of teaching 
languages. The record does not establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a 
whole. 
The Petitioner also submits expert opinion letters prepared by three professionals in the fields of 
language and education. The letters praise the Petitioner's education, experience, past success, 
personal qualities, and the results she achieved. However, these qualities relate to the second prong 
of the Dhanasar framework, whether the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed 
3 While we discuss a sampling of these letters we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
endeavor, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
The issue here is whether the Petitioner's specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's 
first prong. 
We acknowledge that the expert opinions include an analysis of the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In his analysis I I Professor at the University~! ___ ~ 
I I discusses the benefits of English and foreign language education, including in international 
business, foreign affairs, and overall health and development. He compares this to the lack of foreign 
language education in U.S. public schools and the inade uacy of instruction in public universities, 
stating "this is where private schools like o in." In her analysis.I I 
I I a data linguist with ~-----------~' discusses general shortages of 
language instructors in the United States. She concludes that the Petitioner's approach to language 
instruction, giving the example that she will teach English to an entire immigrant family to promote 
"linguistic and cultural integration," is "highly innovative and highly beneficial for the USA." 
However, beyond these general statements, neither! !specifically describes 
or discusses the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor in private language instruction or elaborates 
on how it will have a prospective impact on the United States, including the national or global 
implications on international business, the potential to employ U.S. workers, or the positive economic 
effects. 
The record also includes the expert opinion ofI IProfessor of Education and 
Master of Arts in Teaching Coordinator atl IUniversity. I !discusses market trends 
and shortages and demands in the field of language instruction. He identifies language ]roficiency as 
a problem in the U.S. education system and a subject of national initiatives.I _describes the 
various benefits of multilingualism, including contributions to arts, culture, and government, as well 
as global business opportunities and societal welfare. Although we acknowledge the importance of 
language education that I I describes, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained and 
documented how her work operating a language school from her residence would produce an impact 
rising to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon the evidence she previously submitted. The Petitioner continues 
to rely upon the asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities 
and achievements, and the trends in the language instruction field. However, as set forth above, the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate her proposed endeavor's national importance. Therefore, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the requisite national importance portion of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
4 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
importance, that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner 
references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response and does not provide new 
evidence. The Director fully addressed the previously submitted evidence and explained how it was deficient in 
establishing that the Petitioner met the three Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a national interest waiver. The 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not establish that she meets all of the three Dhanasar prongs. 
6