dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Stem Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2023 In Re: 28838672 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a STEM (science, technology, education, and mathematics) teacher, seeks second 
preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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. 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion2, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
1 The Director 's decision only addressed the Petitioner 's eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver on appeal, we need not remand the matter to the Director in order 
make a determination on the underlying immigrant classification. 
2 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). 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner indicated on Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that his occupation is a 
"STEM TEACHER" and his proposed employment is a "HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER[]." Moreover, 
the Petitioner provided a statement indicating that "[a]s a STEM Teacher with a unique and rare range 
of skills, certification, and experience pertinent to my area, I plan to work as a STEM Teacher, expand, 
and share my knowledge and expertise .... " 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a business plan for 
"al ~based educational center." On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that "[r]unning a STEM 
educational center is an endeavor that will contribute greatly to the furtherance of human knowledge 
by creating the next generation of STEM scholars, regardless of economic benefits." 
At the outset, the Petitioner initially indicated he intended to work as a STEM teacher. However, in 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted for the first time that he intended to open, own, 
and operate his own educational center. The Petitioner must establish all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). Further, a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligibleunderanewsetoffacts. Matterofizummi,22I&NDec. 169,175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision 
further provides, citing Matter ofBardouille, 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 opening, owning, and operating 
his own educational center. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Petitioner provided a wide range of topics and information regarding the STEM 
fields and teachers. Here, the Petitioner has shown the substantial merit of his initial proposed 
endeavor. 
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 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 specific, proposed endeavor of working as a STEM 
teacher rather than the importance of STEM and related topics. 3 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. 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 Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
Moreover, 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his initial proposed 
endeavor largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance. Similar to this case, 
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. The record 
does not show through supporting documentation how his particular teaching services sufficiently 
extend beyond his prospective students, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 4 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show that his initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, 
the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from his 
STEM teaching position would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated 
by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by 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 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility 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. 
4 See also generanv 5 USCTS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (instructing that while proposed 
classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, 
such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and 
therefore generally would not establish their national importance). 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3