dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sustainability

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 31842491 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sustainability specialist, 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 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 record did not 
establish 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 pursuant to 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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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: 
1 See 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• 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. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, but he did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance as 
required to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. The 
Director specifically concluded the record did not establish the Petitioiner's proposed endeavor would 
have broad enough impact sufficient to rise to the level of national importance. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues he is providing a detailed breakdown of his plans such that USCIS should conclude 
his work helping companies become more sustainable will be of national importance. For the reasons 
set forth below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework 
and will dismiss the appeal accordingly. 2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor in the field of 
sustainability met the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the goal of the proposed endeavor, "to work for the government 
and implement policy changes to make the state of Florida and the United States more sustainable," 
will be achieved through employment with a Florida government entity between 2026 and 2030. He 
indicates, through his "strategic plan", that his path to employment with the Florida government 
agency will first involve employment with two private companies, networking, and continued 
education. He indicates he intends to first pursue with two specific entities in Florida to 
"establish himself as a Sustainability Specialist in Florida ... [ using the two jobs to] build aemployment
resume of his work, learn more about specific sustainability problems in Florida, and begin networking 
and making a name for himself in the U.S. sustainability industry." Through continued networking, 
he plans to "use his unique expertise to mitigate climate change and help the country." He then intends 
to obtain a Ph.D. to "become uniquely able to advise businesses and the government in more 
sustainable practices". The culmination of his "strategic plan" will be "[e ]mployment with a Florida 
Government Entity". He argues that his proposed endeavor will "directly contribute to both national 
and global environmental stability" by "locally addressing the global crisis of climate change." 
Finally, on appeal, he asserts that the work of sustainability experts positively impacts economic 
growth by fostering "job creation by propelling the demand for green technologies, nurturing 
2 If the Petitioner does not meet the first prong, the evidence is dispositive in finding the Petitioner ineligible for the national 
interest waiver, and we need not address the second and third prongs. 
2 
sustainable business practices, and nurturing growth in renewable energy and waste management 
industries." 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the Petitioner's work. We 
focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. 
While the Petitioner claims that his proposed endeavor serving as a sustainability specialist is of 
national importance because it will address climate change and contribute to both national and global 
environmental stability, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. This is 
particularly true where, as in the Petitioner's case, we are unable to determine the exact nature of the 
proposed endeavor, which includes both pursuing a university degree and seeking future employment 
with multiple entities. Although he has outlined the steps of his proposed endeavor in his strategic 
plan, the actual specifics of that endeavor are not clear. Ultimately, it is not apparent what he intends 
to do at any level of his plan, nor is it explained what the proposed endeavor itself is, other than a plan 
to ultimately seek employment after developing the necessary skills and knowledge. It is insufficient 
to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence 
to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 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, the record does 
not include adequate corroborating evidence to show what the Petitioner's proposed work entails and 
how that endeavor offers broader implications in his field of sustainability or enhancements to U.S. 
societal welfare that rise to the level of national importance. Further, the Petitioner has not presented 
evidence of any potential benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from his undertaking 
that would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. 
at 890. General assertions of economic impact are not sufficient to establish the actual potential 
economic impact of the proposed endeavor. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, and the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As the 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 ofL-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 he has not established he 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3