dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Language Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 31110614 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a language educator, 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 of Christo '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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 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 qualified as an advanced degree professional but did not 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. For the reasons set 
forth below, we agree that the Petitioner has not met the Dhanasar framework and we will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, which aims to provide language education in the 
United States, has substantial merit. Yet, the record does not establish that the endeavor rises to the 
level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner intended to continue working in the United States as a secondary school teacher 
focusing on language education in public schools. In her first professional plan and statement, she 
stated she planned to "create[e] a Portuguese curriculum for [ s ]econdary [ s ]chool and teach[] 
Portuguese, both as a foreign language and a heritage language," noting that "the Portuguese course 
[she] teach[es] have been very sought after and [she] would like to ... continue ... to build the course 
from the beginning to advanced levels." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a new, in-depth 
professional plan elaborating on her plans to provide "high-quality language education to students 
learning academic content through English, Portuguese, and Spanish, as world languages." In this 
updated professional plan, she also provided a detailed summary of her academic and professional 
background. She asserted that, by working as a language educator, she would "play a crucial role in 
enabling students to develop competencies and fulfill their potential for intellectual and social 
growth," and "contribute to the evolution of the country's education path by establishing a multilingual 
tutoring program ... [and] join the teachers' workforce ... [to] promote linguistic diversity and 
facilitate language learning for individuals of all ages and backgrounds." The Petitioner's professional 
plan also elaborated on the demand and shortage of qualified teachers in the U.S., as well as the 
importance of language education due to increased globalization. In support of her endeavor, the 
record also contains several industry articles and reports discussing the current state of the U.S. 
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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
education system, the importance of language skills in employment opportunities, and the prevalence 
and importance of the Portuguese language. The Petitioner further provided articles detailing the 
cognitive and educational benefits of bilingual education, and the importance of bilingual education 
in supporting non-English speaking students. Additionally, the Petitioner submitted multiple 
recommendation letters. 2 
After reviewing the complete record, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility for the requested national interest waiver, as she did not satisfy the 
Dhanasar three-prong framework. With respect to the first prong, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner's endeavor had substantial merit, but that she did not establish her endeavor was nationally 
important as contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Director concluded the 
evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work would result in broader implications to the 
education field commensurate with national importance. Moreover, the Director concluded that the 
evidence did not establish her endeavor would result in substantial economic benefits discussed in 
Dhanasar. 
Upon de novo 
review, we agree that the record does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national importance. In Dhanasar we said that, 
in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor, noting 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 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits new evidence that she contends establishes her "work in the field of 
curriculum and program development" and indicates this endeavor would result in "impacts which can 
be measured beyond the immediate classroom." This evidence includes a copy of the Petitioner's 
revised curriculum vitae (CV), a new personal statement from the Petitioner, four additional letters of 
recommendation, and an excerpt from the publication Interpreting Spoken Languages in Schools, 
discussing federal laws requiring language access for non-English speaking students in public schools 
and the benefits of bilingual education. In her revised personal statement, the Petitioner reiterates her 
academic and professional background, and reasserts the national importance of her endeavor, stating 
that, she "actively collaborate[s] with peers in education and create[s] curricula, including curriculum 
adaptations that ensure inclusivity." In addition, she asserts a "goal [] to enhance the language learning 
experience by developing an innovative curriculum aligned with national language frameworks, the 
latest educational research, and dynamic approaches that elevate and motivate students academically." 
In her appellate brief, the Petitioner relies most heavily on the letter of recommendation from Dr. S-
D-, 6-12 Humanities and World Language Director for which details the 
Petitioner's work in "develop[ing] groundbreaking curriculum in World Language Portuguese." She 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
3 
I 
explains that the Petitioner incorporated several strategies for classroom management adopted from 
the latest research in education. Based on her experience working closely with the Petitioner in 
developing this curriculum, Dr. S-D- asserts that she "firmly believe[s] that [the Petitioner's] work in 
developing a World Language Portuguese curriculum is of national interest." 
Notably, however, the Petitioner's CV indicates that she began her employment withl 
the same month the Director denied the underlying petition, ten months after the filing of the 
petition. As such, she cannot rely on her development of the curriculum for ________ 
to establish her eligibility for the national interest waiver as a petitioner must establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter ofKatigbak 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Moreover, beyond commending the Petitioner for her development of 
the curriculum, Dr. S-D- does not elaborate on how this would result in broader implications to the 
field, beyond the prospective impact to her students, or students in her school district. 
Likewise, in her personal statement, the Petitioner does not address the Director's conclusions 
regarding the limited impact of her work, and instead asserts, that her work "directly contributes to the 
national interest by fortifying the education foundation of our future workforce and preparing students 
for success in an interconnected world." Yet, the record does not support these assertions. For 
example, the Petitioner has not shown that her curriculum development would result in impacts to 
other school districts' curriculum development or otherwise result in impacts in the language education 
field. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little 
probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. 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). In the same way 
teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were not shown to have a broader impact 
on the field of STEM education, the Petitioner has not shown that her endeavor would lead to broader 
implications in the language education field. Dhanasar at 893. 
In addition, the letters of recommendation contained in the record do not establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as they are limited to discussing her past 
accomplishments as a teacher and the impact she already had on her workplace and students. The 
letters do not discuss the direct impact of her proposed endeavor. While we acknowledge that the 
Petitioner is a valuable teacher for her employer and has meaningfully impacted the lives of her 
students, her past accomplishments and praise from former colleagues relates 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 Petitioner has demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends on appeal that her "structural improvements to educational 
curricula would have broad, generational impacts by improving knowledge skills of the U.S. 
workforce, enhancing societal welfare and understanding, and enhancing cultural enrichment and 
understanding." However, these assertions are also not supported by the record. The Petitioner has 
not shown how her introduction of curriculum for her prospective employers would result in broader 
implications to the U.S. education field, or the U.S. workforce. And she has not demonstrated that her 
undertaking has implications beyond the students under her tutelage. While we recognize the record 
contains several industry reports and research articles establishing federal interest in bilingual 
education, the federal mandate ensuring equal access to education for non-English speaking students, 
4 
these articles and industry reports establish the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor, not its 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we explained that the issue was not the national importance of a 
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." Id. at 889. The articles provided do not 
contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work as a language educator will result in 
broader implications in her field or enhancements to U.S. societal welfare that rise to the level 
of national importance. 
Nor has the Petitioner shown that her proposed work has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient 
information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to 
her future work, the record does not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy 
resulting from the Petitioner's teaching activities would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of 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. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5