dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Political Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19956443 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 7, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a political scientist, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
1 In announcing this new framework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
considered must, taken together, indicate 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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the issue to be determined on appeal 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, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner's initial cover letter stated: 
I intend to apply my unique skills, superb academic training in political science and 
history, extensive professional experience as a diplomat, foreign policy analyst, and 
linguist to work with the leading U.S. based Non-governmental organization[s] (NGOs), 
think-tanks and academic centers, as well as establish cooperation with interested federal 
agencies to deepen U.S. - Central Asian strategic cooperation and expand U.S. political 
and economic presence in the Central Asian region .... 
. . . In my proposed endeavor I plan to use my extensive academic training, successful 
professional experience, research and analysis skills coupled with my linguistic abilities, 
to contribute to the deepening and expanding strategic U.S. - Central Asian cooperation. 
There are a number of ways, through which I plan to accomplish this objective, including 
working with the U.S. based NGOs, think-tank institutions and research centers, 
establishing cooperation with interested government agencies and contributing in general 
for a better understanding of the current socio-economic and political developments in 
Central Asia that are crucial to the U.S. national interests. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed: 
In order to successfully accomplish the goals, set forth in my proposed endeavor, I plan 
to use a twofold approach: 
First, I will contribute as a Political Scientist, and particularly as a Policy Analyst and 
Researcher, by closely studying the events and processes taking place in the Central Asian 
region, and preparing analytical reports and articles that can be utilized by the interested 
parties, namely governmental agencies, think tanks, scholars, and business entities to form 
a better understanding of the risks and possibilities of engaging in Central Asian affairs. 
I also plan to collaborate with leading Washington D.C. research centers and think-tanks 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
through participation in discussions, round tables and seminars, preparation of reports that 
lay down the foundation in formulating the national security agenda and foreign policy 
objectives. I have already established good working relations with a number of think­
tanks and journals, that I will discuss in greater detail while presenting supporting 
documentary evidence. 
Second, I will utilize my professional experience as a consular officer, linguist, and 
international relations expert, to form an independent contracting agency/company to 
provide translation services and well as consulting on the immigration and citizenship 
matters pertaining to the Central Asian region. Here, I will also demonstrate that despite 
the global pandemic caused by Covid-19, resulting in loss of jobs, I have successfully 
established a New York based company! I, that has been expanding its client 
based and services, and more importantly creating new jobs and paying state and federal 
taxes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "one of the main tenets of [his] endeavor is to serve as a researcher 
and expert in Central Asian affairs, a region vital to U.S. national interests." In light of the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not its 
national importance, the record does not show that the Petitioner offered a specific, proposed endeavor 
consistent with Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
At the outset, the Petitioner initially claimed that his proposed endeavor involved working with NGOs, 
think-tanks, and academic centers and establishing cooperation with interested federal agencies. The 
Petitioner claimed that he intended to create a new business! to provide translation services 
and to consult on immigration matters in response to the Director's RFE. In fact, the Petitioner's 
supporting evidence relating to this business reflects events occurring after the initial filing of the 
petition.4 Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Moreover, a petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 
(BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed 
endeavor of operating a translation and immigration consulting business. 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence "as an additional confirmation that 
[he] is continuing to successfully implement the proposed endeavors." Notwithstanding that the 
evidence relates to events occurring after the initial filing of the petition, we will not consider this 
evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director. See Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required 
evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not 
consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based 
4 The Petitioner filed his petition in February 2020; however, according to the submitted evidence, he initiated business 
filings with the New York Department of State and U.S. Internal Revenue Service in June 2020, his business plan is dated 
in November 2020, and the business' bank statements are dated between December 2020 and March 2021. 
4 
on the record of proceedings" before the Director); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). 
As indicated above, the Petitioner broadly claimed that he intended "to work with the leading U.S. 
based Non-governmental organization[s] (NGOs), think-tanks and academic centers, as well as establish 
cooperation with interested federal agencies" by "closely studying the events and processes taking place 
in the Central Asian region, and preparing analytical reports and articles that can be utilized by the 
interested parties, namely governmental agencies, think tanks, scholars, and business entities to form a 
better understanding of the risks and possibilities of engaging in Central Asian affairs." The Petitioner, 
however, did not explain what type of research, reports, or articles that he intended to pursue, did not 
identify which events or processes that he referenced, and did not elaborate and specify the entities that 
he asserted would employ him or with whom he would collaborate. Because he did not provide a specific 
endeavor, as required under Dhanasar, the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility under the first prong. 
Notwithstanding the above, 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. Here, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his providing Central Asian 
affairs services rather than the national importance of Central Asian affairs or the wide range of fields 
or industries in which he intends to work. 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 "[aa ]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. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner has repeatedly emphasized his "extensive academic trammg, 
successful professional experience, research and analysis skills coupled with [his] linguistic abilities," 
such personal and professional traits relate 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 
specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
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. While he contended 
the importance of Central Asian affairs, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient, specific 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. Because he has not provided a specific, proposed endeavor, the Petitioner has not shown that 
such proposal stands to sufficiently extend beyond his potential or futuristic employers or clients, to 
impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not established that his endeavor 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 
5 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that the benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from his endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not show that he qualifies for the first prong of the 
Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
Further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, 
would serve no meaningful purpose. 5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that ·'courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
issues in 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). 
6