dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 18, 2025 In Re: 37080756 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the 
Beneficiary, a lawyer, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor was of national importance. 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 I&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. ANALYSTS 
The Director found that the Beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 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, upon de novo review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Beneficiary is an attorney specializing in bankruptcy law. The Beneficiary submitted a statement 
with the initial petition, in which she discusses her intent to work as a bankruptcy lawyer for individual 
clients. She discusses her commitment to providing pro bono representation and publication of a 
"Letter's Series" to provide insights to debtors. The Petitioner also submitted a letter in the initial 
petition. He states that he intends to form a partnership with the Beneficiary and noted her work for 
individual clients. 
In response to the Director's first request for evidence (RFE), the Beneficiary noted her objective to 
advocate for new student loan forgiveness policy and legislation. She stated that she also intends to 
raise public awareness through media appearances, publications, and educational events. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the proposed endeavor did not include policy and legislative 
work. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCTS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998). As the Dhanasar framework requires an analysis of the substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific endeavor proposed by an individual, such a change is material to their 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Also, a petitioner must meet eligibility requirements for the 
requested benefit at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Beneficiary's proposal 
to work on student debt bankruptcy reform and public advocacy submitted for the first time in response 
to the RFE, cannot retroactively establish eligibility. Accordingly, we will only consider the proposed 
endeavor as described in the initial filing when conducting our analysis under the Dhanasar 
framework. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining 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 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit 
may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, 
culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. 
The Beneficiary submitted a statement with the initial petition, in which she discusses her intent to 
work as a bankruptcy lawyer for individual clients. She discusses her commitment to providing pro 
bono representation and publication of a Letter Series to provide insights to debtors. The Petitioner 
also submitted a letter in the initial petition. He states that he intends to form a partnership with the 
Beneficiary. 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 the proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence 
documenting the potential prospective impact of the Beneficiary's 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 sufficiently established how the Beneficiary's position will have a broader 
impact on the field beyond their partnership and clients, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, 
or substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. We observe that the functions described in the record show that the Beneficiary's work will 
help her individual clients and purchasers of her letter series but would not affect bankruptcy and 
student debt law more broadly beyond these individuals. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's work is nationally important as it contributes to the 
reduction of student loan debt and has the potential to benefit millions, through potential precedential 
decisions. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail regarding the endeavor to 
explain how the Beneficiary would do so, beyond stating that she would act as counsel for individual 
clients. The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the "specific endeavor." 
Id. at 889. An endeavor is more specific than a general occupation and should include details of the 
types of work a petitioner intends to undertake and describe specific projects and goals. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. As a comparison, the 
petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that he intended to continue research into the design and 
3 
development of propulsion systems for potential use in military and civilian technologies such as nano­
satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles. Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N at 892. 2 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 3 The Petitioner provided her 
educational and licensing records, her resume, articles and reports, work product from the 
Beneficiary's cases, student loan forgiveness, and bankruptcy law. We observe that many of the 
documents that the Petitioner submitted following the initial petition, such as media articles and work 
completed on behalf of the Beneficiary's clients, originated after the petition's filing. A petitioner 
must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12). The articles and reports provided 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 bankruptcy 
and student loan forgiveness field in a way that implicates national importance. 
The remaining evidence in the records consists of educational records and work product. We observe 
the vast majority of the work product originated after the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12). The remaining work product shows that the Beneficiary has engaged in the practice oflaw in 
support of her clients. However, attorney work product for individual cases, such as what the 
Petitioner presents, points to past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's 
potential impact in the field, as it only represents aspects of a few individual cases. Typically, 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 T&N Dec. at 890. 
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 proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond the Beneficiary's clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The Petitioner has not shown that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
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 T&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2 We also observe that the Petitioner references two non-precedential decisions in support of the Beneficiary's case. Non­
precedential decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that he 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. 
5