dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Private Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 26379575 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 18, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a private security specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the record did not establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification.2 
We will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual 's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-
part-f-chapter-5. 
that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered 
in the field. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 discretion3, 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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria for Exceptional Ability 
Although the Director concluded the Petitioner meets three of the evidentiary criteria, we withdraw that 
finding and conclude the Petitioner meets only one of the required criteria.4 While we do not discuss 
each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
The Petitioner has not provided any official academic record. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's 
finding that this criterion has been met. The record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under 
this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien 
has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The Petitioner provided letters delineating his duties in various prior employment positions across at least 
ten years. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established he meets this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner provided numerous training certificates, such as those for escort training, computer security 
use, and personal defense. Although some employers may prefer individuals with a specific kind of 
3 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). 
4 The Petitioner has not asserted that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
2 
training experience or level, this does not demonstrate that a private security specialist requires a license 
to perform the occupation or a certification for the occupation overall. The Petitioner's certificates 
suggest he completed training on various topics related to security; however, the certificates are not 
certifications for the occupation. Here, the Petitioner appears to confuse the term "certificate" with 
"certification." Although the Petitioner has numerous certificates, this evidence does not support a 
finding that he has a license or other certification to work as a private security specialist. Therefore, we 
withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion and instead conclude the 
evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Director concluded, "the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner has commanded 
a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability." We agree. In 
addition, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's finding concerning this criterion and therefore 
does not overcome it. 
The Petitioner provided a contract settlement voucher, an invoice, and what appears to be a paystub. 
Although the Director stated in the decision that the Petitioner provided "comparable salary 
information," we withdraw that finding and conclude the record does not contain documentation 
comparing the salaries of private security specialists. The record contains little indication that the 
Petitioner earned a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence for consideration under this criterion. Therefore, the record does 
not support a finding that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
The Director determined the Petitioner had established eligibility under this criterion. However, the 
Director did not provide any analysis to support this conclusion. Upon de nova review, we conclude the 
evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner has been recognized by peers, government entities, 
or professional or business organizations for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field. We reviewed the Petitioner's statement, his resume, and the letters from former employers and 
coworkers commending the Petitioner's work. This evidence does not include specific details explaining 
how the Petitioner's work contributed to the industry or field as a whole. Although the Petitioner's work 
benefitted his employers, their clients, and specific mission objectives, the recognition he received for 
performing his job duties is insufficient to establish that he received recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field. Accordingly, we conclude the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility under this criterion. 
Summary of Exceptional Ability Determination 
3 
The record does not support the Director's finding that the Petitioner met at least three of the six regulatory 
criteria for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Rather, we conclude the evidence supports a 
finding of eligibility under only one criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility 
as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As the Petitioner has 
satisfied only one criterion, a final merits determination is not required. Nevertheless, we conclude 
the record does not establish the Petitioner's experience is beyond that which is ordinarily encountered 
in the occupation. 
Demonstrating eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability is a threshold requirement for a national interest waiver. As the 
Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, he is not eligible 
for a national interest waiver. However, as the Director determined the Petitioner had not established 
el igi bi I ity for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework, we provide additional analysis 
of this issue. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner initially stated he will provide "services, consultancy, and training in private security 
projects for logistics operations, personnel, and assets protection." In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), he clarified that his proposed endeavor is to work as either a security 
personnel consultant for schools or as a trainer of qualified security personnel. The scope of his 
endeavor involves "creating, implementing, and monitoring emergency preparedness programs in an 
attempt to mitigate the threats of domestic terrorist attacks in schools." We conclude the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Regarding national importance, the Petitioner provided information concerning the broad applicability 
of private security services, such as in the areas of personal, school, corporate, property, and asset 
security. He provided federal budget and industry statistics, as well as articles and memoranda 
specifically addressing school security and safety. However, 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." Id. 
889. While we agree that the industry of private security services is important, this is not necessarily 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of his specific endeavor. 
For instance, he has not provided information on how many schools or students will receive his 
services or how his services differ from the security services already available. In Dhanasar, we 
determined 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. Likewise, we conclude that the 
4 
Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence of how his proposed endeavor would impact the field 
more broadly. To illustrate further, the Petitioner has not provided information on the economic 
impact of his proposed endeavor, if any. For instance, the record does not show his endeavor will 
create jobs or generate tax revenue. As such, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. While the Petitioner's 
private security services stand to impact those who employ him, the record does not demonstrate how 
his endeavor would impact the field of security more broadly or the nation as a whole. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on arguments and evidence already provided. He further emphasizes 
the merits of his services, as well as his past experience and success. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's valuable experience, his expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
national." Id. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor has national importance under 
Dhanasar's first prong. We conclude the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of his 
proposed endeavor's impact nor has he explained how it would operate on a scale rising to the level 
of national importance. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, 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 would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability or an advanced degree professional, nor has he met the requisite first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or 
otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
Because 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 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5