dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Security Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18187785 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a security management specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and /or as an individual of exceptional ability, 
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. § 1 l 53(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that he 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 requested benefit 
Section291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
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 of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the te1m "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 Dhanasarstates that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, 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 alaborcertification. 2 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director summarized the Petitioner's statements and 
submissions and determined that the record lacked evidence establishing that the proposed endeavor 
has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasarprong, or that it satisfied either the second 
or third Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argued that the Director committed "legal errors" and applied "an 
inappropriate burden of proof." However, the Petitioner did not elaborate on this argument or explain 
what about the Director's decision demonstrated the application of a heightened standard of proof. 
Further, although the Petitioner submitted a new proposal regarding his business endeavor, he did not 
clarify how a document that was created after denial of the petition demonstrates that the eligibility 
requirements for this immigration benefit had been satisfied as of the date this petition was filed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). We fmiher note that a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition 
in an eff 01i to make a deficient petition conf 01m to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 
22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998). 
In sum, the appeal does not adequately specify a legal or factual error. Because the Petitioner did not 
address the Director's Dhanasar analysis of the three prongs, any one of which is dispositive, we 
summarily dismiss the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Finally, we note that the scope of a 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
motion on this decision, should the Petitioner choose to file one, will be limited to the issue of whether 
we erred in concluding that the Petitioner did not address on appeal the Director's conclusions 
regardingDhanasar three-prong analysis. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed. 
3