dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Water Purification

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 26, 2023 In Re : 26958066 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur who intends to manage a company operating in the field of water 
purification , seeks employment-ba sed second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer , and thus of a labor certification , 
when it is in the national intere st to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor has national importance, that the Petitioner is well 
positioned to advance his endeavor , or that there is a national interest in waiving the requirements of 
a job offer and, thus , of a labor certification. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master 's 
degree . 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(k)(2) . 
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 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; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ADVANCED DEGREE 
To establish his attainment of the foreign equivalent of an U.S. advanced degree, the Petitioner initially 
submitted his diploma from a university in Russia, a transcript, his resume, and certificates for his 
completion of English language courses. While not folly analyzed in a request for evidence (RFE), 
the Director indicated that this documentation was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner holds an 
advanced degree. The Director provided the following in the RFE: 
Since the beneficiary completed his education outside the United States, in addition to 
the beneficiary's official academic record, please submit a detailed advisory evaluation 
of the beneficiary's credentials. This evaluation is necessary to determine the level and 
major field of the beneficiary's education in terms of equivalent education in the United 
States. An acceptable evaluation should: 
• Consider formal education only, and not practical training or experience; 
• State whether the beneficiary completed the United States equivalent of high 
school before entering college; 
• Provide a detailed explanation of the evaluated material, rather than a simple 
conclusive statement; and 
• Briefly state the evaluator's qualifications and experience. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted the following statement clarifying his educational 
background: 
I am a degreed professional in the field of Organization and Construction Business 
Management. I currently hold the following degrees: 
• Master's Degree in Organization Management with a concentration in Construction 
froml IRussia) 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
• Completed 3 years of study in RussianI I Russia) and 1 year of study in,.....______________ ..,... 
I IRussia) 
The Petitioner also provided the following information with regard to his educational history: 
I chose art as a subject of study and I was selected for admission at the._l_____ _.
I I. . . . After completing my first year at 
art school I realized I wanted to do somethin sociall im ortant and chan ed my 
major. I transferred to the and 
started my studies at~------------~... In 2006 I started my 
career in sales while continuing my studies at the two universities mentioned above. 
According to translations of documents in the record, the Petitioner received a diploma in 2011 from 
theI Iin Russia for the qualification of "Manager." A transcript shows 
the following history of the Petitioner's education (quoted as written): 
Prior education document Diploma of completed secondary education, issued 
in 2004 
Entry exams Passed 
Enrolled in 2004 at 1 
(foll 
time) 
Graduated in 201 J at the I 
,__I_______ __.I (part-time) 
Standard Full-time 
education period 5 years 
Area/ specialty Organization management 
Specialization Business management in construction 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE also includes an academic evaluation that equates his five years 
of study to "a Master's Degree in Organizational Management with a concentration in Construction 
Management from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." The Director's 
decision does not discuss this evidence or explicitly determine whether or not the evidence establishes 
that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of an advanced degree. 
Because we conclude below that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, we need not folly address the Petitioner's underlying eligibility for the EB-2 classification. 
3 
However, we will briefly discuss the issue to inform the Petitioner that this should be addressed in any 
future EB-2 proceedings. 
The academic evaluation does not provide a sufficient analysis of the Petitioner's coursework. The 
evaluation states, 'The coursework required byl I 
in Organization Management program is substantially similar to the required course work leading to 
a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree from an accredited institution of higher learning in the 
United States." However, the evaluation does not discuss how a degree from this institution equates 
to a U.S. master's degree or other degree above that of a U.S. bachelor's degree. In fact, the evaluation 
indicates that a minimum of a bachelor's degree is not required for enrollment in the program for 
which the Petitioner received a diploma; it states that the program at the I II I "requires graduation from the US equivalent of high school and competitive entrance 
examinations for admission and enrollment." The evaluation does not mention the two other schools 
that the Petitioner attended, and we note that the academic transcript does not identify which 
coursework was completed at which school or that the Petitioner received a degree from any school 
other than from the I IIt is not clear to what U.S. degree level the 
Petitioner's degree might equate. The inconsistencies in the evaluation and its lack of analysis call 
into question its evidentiary credibility; USCIS considers such credentials evaluations as advisory 
only, and if questionable in any way, USCIS may give them less weight. See Matter of Caron Int' l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
In addition, while a petitioner may establish achievement of an advanced degree through attainment 
of a bachelor's degree and at least five years of progressive experience in the field, the record does not 
include documentation of the Petitioner's specific work experience beyond his resume and 
congratulatory letters from previous employers that generally reference his work; these letters are brief 
and express gratitude but do not provide details concerning the Petitioner's employment. 3 In any 
future EB-2 proceedings, the Petitioner must establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The Petitioner intends to manage a company that will work with another company to provide services 
related to water 
purification. The record includes a business plan in which the Petitioner describes 
issues related to contaminated tap water in the United States. The business plan includes the following 
description of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor: 
Between 2018 and 2020, 56% of Americans drank water from systems contaminated 
with lead, of which there is no safe level of exposure. Currently, many private water 
system treatment providers exploit the justified fear over unsafe water to mark up their 
services and leverage scare tactics to convince consumers to purchase equipment they 
do not need. That is wherel kalso referred to as "the Company") 
steps in. 
3 The letters from the Petitioner's former employers must include the name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific 
description of the duties performed by the Petitioner. If such evidence is unavailable, other documentation relating to his 
experience will be considered. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(l). 
4 
Founded in 2021 by organization and construction business management expert
I Ioffers real solutions to water contamination. The 
Company, through partnership with.__ _____________ _. provides 
education, free water testing, consultation, and water systems installation to the 
residents and businesses of southern Florida. The Company's approach is all about 
empowering the customer to ensure safe water access-not frightening them. By the 
end of Year 2, the Company will expand its territory to cover the rest of the state by 
hiring subcontractors. 
The fust 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. 
While the Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the 
Director concluded that the record did not establish the national importance of the endeavor. He 
acknowledged the Petitioner's citations in the business plan and his submission of articles and reports 
that focus generally on the water supply industry and contamination issues throughout the United 
States to demonstrate the importance of the field of water treatment and delivery; this information, 
however, does not demonstrate the importance of a particular endeavor proposed by the Petitioner. 
The Director explained that, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the 
importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess 
national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may 
have national importance, as required by the first prong, as having "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as one that has 
"significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90 . The Director further explained that, 
to evaluate whether a petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we must look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work of the proposed 
endeavor. Id. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was in error, although he does not specify 
how the Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 4 Much of the brief quotes 
verbatim from an expert opinion letter included in response to the RFE; the brief describes the 
importance of water treatment in the United States, discussing statistics and findings from the U.S. 
Census Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Centers for Disease Control 
(CDC), as well as the local and global implications of contaminated water and the lack of available 
clean water. The Petitioner also discusses in the brief, as he does in the business plan, the increasing 
privatization of public water delivery and the expansion of larger public utility firms. The Petitioner 
4 An appeal must specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)( l)(v). 
5 
emphasizes that the evidence of record establishes both his eligibility for the EB-2 classification and 
for a national interest waiver. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not established that his 
entrepreneurial endeavor to work with a water treatment company to operate in thel larea rises 
to the level of national importance. While the business plan cites compelling evidence of water 
contamination issues in the United States, the business plan does not describe specific ways in which 
the Petitioner's company,! Iwill address contamination issues beyond clientele within an 
area limited to its location of operation; the forecasts included in the business plan are not supported 
by explanations or objective evidence to support the estimations projected. 5 The business plan depicts 
the sources and uses of $25,000 that the Petitioner states he has invested in his company, but the plan 
does not detail how those funds or the company's relationship with 
I I will impact the water treatment industry on either a nation._a_l_o_r_g_l_o_b_a_l_sc_a_l_e_______ ___. 
An Independent Contractor Agreement included in the record shows that I I will work as 
a contractor for I I Among other stipulations, the contract states that I Iwill provide 
products and services that are "fully and materially accurate and in accordance witl any anl all training 
material supplied by I t' and that it "will not disclose tol I, or induce to use, any 
confidential or proprietary information or material belonging to any employer or other person or 
entity." Though the business plan states that I ~'plans to provide I I with more 
opportunities in the future, such as expanding .___----.-____.territory to north Florida as a 
franchisor," and claims that I l'can now hire additional subcontractors throughout the 
state," it appears that the Petitioner's business decisions and intentions are limited in Tope and I 
scalability as a contractor. The record does not include sufficient documentation to establish 
I I significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise demonstrate its positive economic 
effects. The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified 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 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver. The petition will remain denied. 
5 The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7