dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 2, 2024 In Re: 30556503 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would 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 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance and thus, she did not meet the national importance 
requirement of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 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 ofL-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). 
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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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). 2 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 3 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows 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 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 discretion,4 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 
The Petitioner states that she has more than 24 years of experience as a psychologist. She states that 
her professional experience includes 18 years with an armed security company where she served as 
human resources director and organizational psychologist, and four years as a school psychologist for 
students ages 11 to 14. She states that her proposed endeavor is to develop an application, to be 
marketed to schools in the United States, that will analyze students' personal and behavioral data to 
identify the probability of risk of involvement in violent behavior. She states that the data shown in 
the app will allow school staff to "promote actions to reduce the risk of possible attacks and protect 
and promote better emotional quality in this school environment." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 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). 
3 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of aliens of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5 . 
4 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Petitioner asserts that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. With the initial filing the 
Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, evidence of her claimed eligibility as 
an individual of exceptional ability, a personal statement describing her proposed endeavor and 
claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, and recommendation and support letters. 
A. Member of Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Petitioner asserts that she qualifies for advanced degree professional classification by virtue of 
foreign education that she claims is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, followed by more than five 
years of progressive experience, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The Director 
determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. After 
reviewing the record, we disagree with the Director's determination. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate [or] A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a 
master's degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The Petitioner submitted certified English language translations of her academic record but did not 
provide copies of the original documents that were translated. Any document containing a foreign 
language submitted to USCIS must be accompanied by a full English language translation, as well as 
a certification from the translator that the translation is complete and accurate and that they are 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Without both 
the original foreign language document and a certified English language translation, it is not possible 
to meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and supports the Petitioner's 
claims. 
The English language translations of her academic record include a certificate issued in the Petitioner's 
name by the The certificate notes the "completion of the 
course of psychology in the first school term of 1998 and degree collation on August 13, 1998 [to 
bestow] the degree of Psychologist upon" the Petitioner. The English language translations also 
include an "accumulated school transcript" indicating five years of coursework, from 1992 to 1998. 
The record also includes an evaluation of the Petitioner's academic credentials. The evaluation 
concludes that the certificate issued by the is is the equivalent of 
a bachelor's degree in psychology awarded by regionally accredited universities in the United States. 
3 
However, absent a copy of the Petitioner's academic record in its original language, we are precluded 
from determining that she is an advanced degree professional. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted letters from her former employers attesting to her 
employment as a psychologist, including: 
• A letter dated August 28, 2022, from l managing partner, attesting 
to the Petitioner's employment with I lfrom February 
1998 to November 2018; 
• A letter dated August 31, 2022, from director, attesting to the 
Petitioner's employment with from August 2015 to 
April 2019, and; 
• A letter dated September 3, 2022, from administrative director, 
attesting to the Petitioner's employment withl I from March 
2021 to at least the date of the letter. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner provided an additional letter froml I dated July 
6, 2023. In this letter, Ms.I I states that the Petitioner was employed from January 1995 to 
February 2015, and was director of the psychology department since 1998. This letter is inconsistent 
with Ms.I I letter dated August 28, 2022, stating that the Petitioner was employed through 
November 2018. Further, the Petitioner's full-time employment from 1995 overla s with her claimed 
academic studies through 1998. And her employment with throu h 
November 2018 overlaps with her claimed full-time employment with 
from August 2015 to April 2019. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, at 591-92. 
We also note that the Petitioner's claimed employment with ___________ 1s 
inconsistent with a nonimmigrant visa application she submitted in January 2014. In her pnor 
nonimmigrant visa application, the Petitioner listed her present employer as _______ 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of 
other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. The Petitioner must 
resolve the inconsistencies in her employment history in any further filings. 
In light of the above, we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has established 
that she is an advanced degree professional in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). However, 
because the Petitioner was not on notice of these issues, this does not form the basis of our dismissal. 
The Petitioner must address and resolve this in any further filings. 5 
5 The Petitioner also claims eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the 
Director did not evaluate the Petitioner's evidence to determine whether she satisfies at least three of six categories of 
evidence listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii), nor did the Director conduct a final merits determination to decide whether 
the evidence in its totality shows that the Petitioner is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. We decline to make an analysis and determination on this claim in the first instance 
on appeal. However, should the Petitioner overcome other deficiencies noted herein in any further filings, the matter 
would be remanded to the Director for further consideration and analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability. 
4 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, she did not establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance as set forth 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We agree, for the reasons explained 
below. 
The first prong, 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. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes an updated personal statement. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit. However, she 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national 
importance. The Director stated that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's particular 
work would have broader implications in the field or significant economic impact at a level 
commensurate with national importance. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate national interest factors such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit 
of her prospective contributions to the United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, 
the potential creation of jobs, or that her self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: excerpts from her RFE response, and news articles discussing 
gun violence in the United States. The Petitioner references evidence already in the record and states 
that she reaffirms "that [her] project is of national importance and that [her] contribution is undeniable 
and totally focused on the safety of schools and students in the United States." In her brief, the 
Petitioner does not identify any legal or factual error in the Director's decision. Nor does she address 
the specific findings in the Director's denial. 
In Dhanasar, we 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." Matter o/Dhanasar, at 890. Although 
the Petitioner discusses her intention to employ 12 individuals and provides a five-year profit and loss 
projection, these generalized projections are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. at 889. 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. "In 
5 
determining national importance, the officer's analysis shouldfocus on what the beneficiary will be 
doing rather than the specific occupational classification." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l ), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (emphasis added). The Petitioner continues to rely upon the 
asserted merits of the services she will provide, her personal and professional qualities and 
achievements, and the general importance of school safety. However, as set forth in the Director's 
decision, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
Upon review of the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision concerning the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful 
purpose. As noted above, we reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the two remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the 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. 
6 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, the Director 
concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its national 
importance. The Director noted that the Petitioner's evidence also did not demonstrate that she is well-positioned to 
advance her proposed endeavor, or 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. On appeal, the Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted 
with the original petition and RFE response. The Director fully addressed the supporting evidence in the decision and 
explained how it was deficient in establishing that the Petitioner met the Dhanasar factors and would be eligible for a 
national interest waiver. 
6