dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2024 In Re: 29277235 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a recent law school graduate and former police officer, 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 although the 
Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, he had not established that a waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
If 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 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 (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, 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 
1 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). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Petitioner proposes to practice law in the United States. 3 The Petitioner states that his goal is to 
help people protect their rights and freedoms by "representing clients in court, advocating for policy 
changes, and working with communities to promote awareness of their rights." 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not have substantial merit. 
Evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and 
we withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
Turning to the national importance of his endeavor, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that 
the Director did not give due regard to the evidence submitted, including a letter of recommendation 
from the Head of the Special Training Department of the Police Department of theI I 
region and his personal statements. 
Regarding the Petitioner's letter of recommendation, the author praises the Petitioner's abilities in the 
legal sector, and the personal attributes that make him an asset to the workplace. While the 
recommendation letter evidences the high regard the Petitioner's professional acquaintance has for the 
Petitioner and his work, the author does not offer persuasive detail concerning the national importance 
of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. As to the Petitioner's statements, his initial statement focused 
on the shortage of lawyers in the United States; however, the national shortage of lawyers is not, in 
and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. Further, the 
Department of Labor directly addresses U.S. worker shortages through the labor certification process. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's statement submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
relies, in part, on his experience in the legal sector to establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions are 
considerations under Dhanasar 's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of his proposed work. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. Although the 
Petitioner states that he intends to work as a lawyer, he has not offered sufficient information and 
evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. 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. Id. 
at 893. Here, we conclude that the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands 
3 The Petitioner also has a job offer to be an immigration paralegal at his counsel's firm. 
2 
to sufficiently extend beyond his future clients and employer(s) to impact the legal industry more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also did not show that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his lawyer position 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address his eligibility under the remaining prongs, and we hereby reserve them. 4 The burden 
of proof is on the Petitioner to establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-376. The Petitioner 
has not done so here and, therefore, we conclude that he has not established eligibility for a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 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 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3