dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law And Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 10, 2023 In Re: 28446365 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advance degree professional, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification . 
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 a waiver of the required 
job offer and thus of the labor certification, would not 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 l&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. 53 7, 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner 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, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
Regarding her claim of eligibility under Dhanasar' s first prong, the Petitioner initially indicated in part 
5 of the petition that she intends to pursue her endeavor through employment in a variety of occupational 
fields, such as a "project manager, lawyer, and economist." In part 6 of the petition, she states that her 
job title will be "program coordinator," and that her nontechnical job description will include duties, such 
as "assign duties or responsibilities to project personnel. Communicate with key stakeholders to 
determine project." She quoted these job duties verbatim from the general job description for "project 
management specialists on O*NET, an employment information database sponsored by the U.S. 
Department of Labor. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/13-1082.00. As such, the above 
passage describes the general duties of a project management specialist, but it provides no specific 
details about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter which presents a listing of diverse areas of national concern to 
the United States, ( e.g., international trade affairs, corporate law policy, and the promotion of women's 
rights and other gender-related issues), but she did not sufficiently describe her proposed endeavor. 
The Director concluded in her denial that the Beneficiary's prospective work within the above listed 
fields has substantial merit. However, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
has established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. The first prong in Dhanasar, which 
requires a showing of both substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake. Considering the totality of the evidence, the record 
does not substantiate the Petitioner's specific endeavor(s). 
The Petitioner asserts that U.S. "trade policy, international trade, and international trade law are one 
of my areas of expertise," and discusses research projects that she embarked upon while attending 
graduate school. She also contends that she will make contributions to the U.S. by bringing her 
"intellectual analysis to enact trade policies that will foster U.S. trade relations with other countries; it 
will also extend to shaping the corporate law policies in the United States." She also avers that if this 
petition is approved, she will "volunteer[] a percentage of her time to promoting women's rights ... 
[noting that she previously] volunteered to work as a women's economic empowerment program 
manager to change the lives of women who have given up on themselves and resorted to prostitution 
by planning a skills enrichment and outreach program to better their lives." 
We conclude that in this case the Petitioner initially described her broad areas of experience and 
knowledge, but simply stating she will make contributions to our nation within these general areas of 
interest is insufficient to establish what her proposed endeavor will entail, and that it will have 
substantial merit and national importance. Importantly, the Petitioner did not discuss in sufficient 
detail how her employment as a project manager, lawyer, and economist demonstrates both substantial 
merit and national importance. For instance, the Petitioner states she will pursue the enactment of 
2 
"trade policies that will foster U.S. trade relations with other countries," but she did not explain how 
she will pursue changes in U.S. trade policy. Similarly, she alluded to pursuing employment that will 
enable her to "shape corporate law policies," but provided insufficient discussion of the means through 
which she will significantly influence this broad area oflaw in the United States. While she discusses 
some of the initiatives that she has previously been involved with to promotes women's rights and 
economic wellbeing, without more, her stated intent to do so on a voluntary basis also gives little 
insight into how her volunteer work would broadly impact the nation. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for more information and evidence to 
establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In response, the Petitioner submits a letter 
in which she asserts that her "present and future research works on U.S. corporate law and trade 
policies stand an enormous change to be part of policy-changing writing." Notably, the Petitioner 
does not offer detailed information explaining how she will prospectively pursue her research projects. 
The record does not establish the prospective capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be 
predominantly engaged in conducting research on an ongoing basis. 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that the Petitioner had published research papers and had 
attended academic symposia, but concluded the record did not demonstrate that her multifaceted 
proposed endeavor would offer benefits that extend beyond her own immediate employment to impact 
the nation more broadly. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor will be of 
national importance and asserts: 
The areas of my proposed endeavors can be subsumed under law and economics; and 
the economics aspect can be further divided into finance, trade, and women's economic 
empowerment." 
[S]ince one of my proposed endeavors is to become a legal practitioner in the United 
States, the research is intricately embedded because the bulk of legal practice involves 
research. Working as a legal practitioner itself entails researching past decided cases 
that are on all fours with the present issue; apt statutory authorities and legal analysis 
that would support a present case.... 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a copy of an April 2023 email from the New York State Board of 
Law Examiners which indicates that they received copies of her foreign documents which they are 
reviewing to determine if she is eligible to sit for the New York bar examination. This evidence 
suggests that she was not eligible to practice law in the United States at the time of filing the petition 
in May 2022, and may still be ineligible to do so, which raises additional questions regarding the 
substantive nature of her proposed endeavor. The record does not currently establish the prospective 
capacity, if any, in which the Petitioner will be predominantly engaged in conducting legal research 
on an ongoing basis. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. In Dhanasar, we 
determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
3 
importance because they would not impact her field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner has 
not established how her individual employment would affect national employment levels or the U.S. 
economy more broadly consistent with national importance. While the Petitioner references labor 
shortages in the U.S. noting "the U.S. needs competent professionals like me in the trade, finance and 
professional services industries," it is important to note that labor shortages in the professional services 
industries do not render her proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework. 
In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through the labor certification process. 
Additionally, the Petitioner submitted a February 2023 job offer letter from a U.S. employer in her 
RFE response for a position as a financial analyst. She indicates that going forward she will be 
working full-time in this position. Notably, her initial description of the proposed endeavor did not 
include any plans for prospective employment as a financial analyst. The Petitioner must meet 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(1 ). The Petitioner's 
pursuit of employment as a financial analyst after the filing date cannot retroactively establish 
eligibility. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an 
effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter ofIzummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); seealsoMatterofKatigbak, 14 I&NDec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971), which requires that beneficiaries seeking employment-based immigrant classification must 
possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. For this additional reason, 
the petition may not be approved. 
Nonetheless, without more information about her specific proposed endeavor and how she will apply 
her knowledge and expertise in the United States, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established her 
proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that her work in the United States will have 
substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance 
of evidence that it is qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
In determining whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the 
specific proposed endeavor to determine whether (1) it has both substantial merit and national 
importance and (2) the foreign national is well positioned to advance it under the Dhanasar analysis. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding her proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that she meets either the first or second prong of the Dhanasar precedent. 
Accordingly, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of her 
eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful 
purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe 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. 
4