dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Policy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 8, 2023 In Re: 28051191 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a public policy consultant, 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 l&N Dec. 537, 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. 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 discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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). 
• 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 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, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner initially indicated that she intends to continue to 
work as a public policy consultant in "the field of international development ... helping developing and 
poor countries." She asserted that she planned to work "directly with organizations and think tanks 
supporting and promoting economic prosperity in poor countries." The Petitioner further stated: 
At the present time, my primary objective is to ... contribute to the support oflong-term 
stability and prosperity in poor countries. To this end, I see myself working as a 
practitioner in international organizations or influential think tanks / consulting firms with 
a global focus aimed to support developing countries through designing and implementing 
assistance programs. My particular interest is to work on the programs focused on the 
Eurasian region (including Central Asia, Post-Soviet Countries, Eastern and Western 
Europe), where my knowledge of local context and expertise can be invaluable, 
particularly in building partnership and defining priority areas. 
The Petitioner further noted that because ' f the United States 
and the nation's epicenter of global policy making and advocacy," continuing her work in that city "will 
contribute to the advancement of economic development in the United States and the world at large, as 
well as the success of U.S. foreign policy in Central Asia, Commonwealth oflndependent States, and the 
rest of the developing world." 
In addition, the Petitioner discussed a project she worked on in Kazakhstan from 2018 until 2019 
providing "technical assistance in the development and implementation of cluster policy in the country." 
The Petitioner claimed that "the main outcomes of the 2-year project could be resumed as follows: 6 
territorial clusters in 6 different regions and priority sectors were designed and launched, a legal 
framework for a cluster policy is developed and implemented, a cluster development action agenda is 
developed with detailed policy recommendations for further development and implementation of national 
cluster strategy was developed."2 While the Petitioner indicated that the "outcomes of the 2-year project 
could be resumed," she did not state that she planned to engage in this particular project in Kazakhstan or 
provide supporting evidence relating to her future involvement in the project. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reiterated that her proposed 
endeavor involves working as a public policy consultant. She further stated: 
2 The record does not include evidence from the World Bank or the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
inviting the Petitioner to continue her work on this project. 
2 
Regarding my specific plans as a consultant in the United States, I intend to continue 
working in the fields of international development, focusing on developing regions, 
namely, Central Asia, Post-Soviet States, Latin America, and some European countries 
(including Eastern Europe). 
I intend to achieve my professional goals either by getting a consultant job in international 
organizations, consulting firms, or influential think tanks engaged in the implementation 
of U.S. foreign assistance programs. Or, by opening a project consulting firm to provide 
the same type of policy consulting services to organizations and firms as a consultant 
instead of an employee. 
I have started my consulting firm I Ispecialized in policy and market 
analysis in emerging markets and developing countries. So far, I am already working with 
my first client on the analysis of developing countries to identify potential opportunities 
to expand his business. Similarly, I have received a letter of interest from U.S. company 
interested in entering new markets, yet lacking information about their target markets, 
opportunities and potential risks. Therefore, I am confident that by working as an 
independent consultant, I will continue contributing to U.S. interests, firstly, by helping 
U.S. firms to explore opportunities and to build partnerships with the private sector and 
local organizations in developing countries. 
Either way, through my work for various organizations and firms implementing assistance 
and support programs or as an independent consultant working with individual firms, I 
will still contribute to the economic growth in developing countries, and therefore, I will 
support U.S. prosperity and security objectives. 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters from colleagues who discuss her knowledge and 
experience in international development and her foreign consulting projects. For example, Dr. C-R­
G-, Professor of Economics at University! land the Petitioner's former research 
supervisor and coauthor, stated that the Petitioner's "work on the constraints upon economic growth 
in the Kyrgyz Republic as well as her other publications were used by USAID in the Kyrgyz 
Republic." He further indicated that the Petitioner's "work on regional development based on clusters 
in livestock in the Kyrgyz Republic was helpful in developing the project promoted by the Ministry 
of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of Turkey and Food and Agricultural Organization of United 
Nations." In addition, the Petitioner presented letters from three prospective clients ~ I I Ireflecting interest in utilizing her consulting 
services. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, as well as interest from 
potential customers, 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 she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. The 
letters from Petitioner's colleagues and prospective clients do not contain sufficient information and 
explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that her specific 
proposed work as public policy consultant offers broader implications in the field of international 
development or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national 
importance. 
3 
The record also includes information about the U.S. foreign policy dilemma in Central Asia, North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership, NATO expansion and countries seeking 
membership, and signatories of NATO's Partnership for Peace framework document. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided articles discussing the U.S. Department of State's Strategy for Central Asia, the 
Biden Administration's Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, and NATO's relations with 
Central Asia. The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown 
that her undertaking "stands to sufficiently extend beyond her consulting firm to impact her field ... more 
broadly at a level with national importance." Additionally, the Director indicated that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor "has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or 
otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her proposed endeavor stands to "increase ties with Central Asian 
countries" through fostering "U.S. companies' economic activity" in those nations and affecting "U.S. 
relations in those areas." She states that "having a consultant in the U.S. that will allow U.S. companies 
to not only get into other countries but succeed and prosper there, as well as meet relevant international 
agreements on the environment and employee relations, is clearly in the national interests of the U.S."3 
The Petitioner also indicates that her undertaking will "help poor underdeveloped countries have the 
resources and opportunities needed to build better lives for their future citizens." In addition, she asserts 
that "the implications ofworking with U.S. companies to get them deals with the governments of Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc. does have global implications as it ties these countries more closely with 
the U.S., both [sic] economically, politically, and security wise." The Petitioner further contends that 
"[t]he U.S. relies on people such as [the Petitioner] to ease the way for U.S. companies to gain access to 
these countries." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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. 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 "[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." Id. 
at 890. 
3 The appeal brief claims that the Petitioner "has not only (and will not only) be doing direct economic development work, 
but also writing about and publishing about her findings and work as she has in the past." The Petitioner's publication 
record relates 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 she proposes to undertake has national 
importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Neither of the Petitioner's signed personal statements offered initially or in 
response to the Director's RFE stated that she plans to publish her work. Further, the evidence indicates that the Petitioner 
has not published any findings since coauthoring a paper with her research supervisor (Dr. C-R-G-) in 2018. 
4 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide valuable international development consulting 
services, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of her 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 the Petitioner has not 
shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future U.S . employer or 
consulting clientele to impact her field or U.S. economic and security interests more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
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 attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's international development projects would reach the 
level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner 's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under 
the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of 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. 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