remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20162051 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a teacher and educational administrator , 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 the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver. 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 I&N Dec . 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS , 936F.3d 868 (9th Cir.2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner, an educator with a master's degree from the University of 
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. 
The Petitioner is an assistant professor and senior consultant in international relations at 
University in Taiwan and an executive consultant to school administration at the affiliated 
International School, a bilingual private school that offers primary and secondary (K-12) education. 
When the Petitioner filed the petition in May 2020, she submitted a statement that contained few 
details about her intended work in the United States: 
I intend to devote my rich educational management skills to improving the education 
of countless citizens. . . . I will dedicate my efforts to the development of K-12 
international education and internationalization of higher education. . . . I am open to 
any possible opportunities to contribute to U.S. educational development. 
The Director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition (NOID) in February 2021, stating that the 
Petitioner had not submitted detailed information to show the specific nature of the proposed endeavor. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a more detailed statement and a business plan dated May 2021. 
The Petitioner stated that she intends to establish a "Center of Bilingual Education Resources and 
Research" to be called The Petitioner stated that " will serve as a 
bridge to exchange professional knowledge and research output in Mandarin Chinese-English 
bilingual education among educational institutions in California, Taiwan and Hong Kong," and 
address "the lack of trained and certified K-12 teachers" who are qualified to teach in "Mandarin 
Chinese-English dual immersion program[s]." The Petitioner asserted: " consultation, service 
and activities concentrate on three major areas: teacher support, school support and research 
collaboration." 
The Petitioner stated that would establish master's degree programs at universities in California 
and recruit "teacher candidates from ... Taiwan and 
Hong Ko
Kong to attend the credentialed bilingual 
authorization program in California." After training, would seek to place those teachers in "K-
12 schools in California that need Mandarin Chinese-English bilingual teachers." would also 
support the development of a "bilingual Mandarin Chinese-English curriculum" in "K-12 schools in 
California," and support research into bilingual education. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 
2 
as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, but the 
Petitioner had not shown that her endeavor would have a significant impact "beyond the organization 
and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director concluded thatthe proposed 
endeavor would primarily benefit trainees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the "proposed endeavor will have broad regional, national, and 
global implications in education and beyond. It has the potential to create employment opportunities 
in the U.S. and abroad .... Further, it will have positive economic and cultural effects through cross 
culture and bilingual teaching leading to a better understanding of the world." 
The Director does not appear to have given full consideration to all the elements of the proposed 
endeavor. While the training of bilingual teachers is a major part of the proposed endeavor, the 
Petitioner's stated plans include other activities such as curriculum design which could, in principle, 
be widely implemented and thereby have a greater impact than the training of a small number of 
teachers. The Director may wish to issue a request for evidence in order to further develop the record 
and establish whether or not the entirety of the proposed endeavor has national importance. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
In the denial notice, the Director's discussion of this second Dhanasar prong was limited to two 
observations. First, "the petitioner's education and experience qualifies [sic] her to work as an 
Educator," and, second, the Petitioner did not provide enough information about the cost of the 
proposed endeavor and how she intends to finance the endeavor. 
The Director's discussion of the second prong is incomplete. The record does show that the Petitioner 
has significant experience as a teacher and as an educational administrator, but the proposed endeavor 
centers around the operation of aas a non-profit organization and, eventually, a "private 
foundation," according to the Petitioner's stated plans. The Petitioner has not explained how her 
background as a teacher and administrator within the framework of a particular school or university 
has adequately prepared her to establish and run a "private foundation" like 
On appeal, the Petitioner has submitted a significantly revised business plan for and evidence 
that her adult son has agreed to provide over $500,000 toward establishing and operating This 
information was not available to the Director at the time of the denial, and we will therefore remand 
the matter so that the Director can consider this new evidence. 
3 
At the same time, we note that the revised business plan includes significant elements that were not in 
the first version of the lan. A prominent example is information aboutthel I 
a nonprofit organization headed by a professor atl I 
University _______ The Petitioner executed a memorandum of understanding wi1h 
_ in August 2021, a month after the Director denied the petition. The Petitioner's newly 
described reliance onl I appears to represent a material revision of the proposed endeavor, which 
does not establish that the Petitioner met all eligibility requirements at the time she filed the petition 
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Also, when considering whether the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 
the Director must take into account the expected involvement of third parties. In this instance, the 
original version of the business plan in the record indicates that the Petitioner will seek collaboration 
with six universities in California, including the University of and I I 
University. The Director must consider whether the Petitioner has submitted any evidence that those 
universities have agreed to collaborate with the project. The revised business plan submitted on 
appeal adds a seventh university,! I We note, first, that this amounts to a late-stage 
revision of the plan, and second, the Petitioner has submitted a letter of interest from a professor who 
is in the process of retiring from but his statements do not represent a binding 
commitment by the university. The professor, instead, speaks primarily in his role as the head of 
I I 
For the above reasons, the record requires further development and consideration in order to establish 
whether or not the proposed endeavor, as originally described, meets the requirements set f orth in 
Dhanasar. 
At this time, we will not consider the third Dhanasar prong concerning whether a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States. This issue hinges on still-unresolved 
questions concerning the first two prongs, and therefore is not yet ripe for appellate review. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4