remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Religious Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 29, 2024 In Re: 29046851 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a children's Christian ministry educator and creator of related social media content, 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. 
A. EB-2 Classification 
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 U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was an advanced degree professional within the meaning 
of 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) stating "the . . . evidence .. . establishes [the Petitioner] completed her 
Bachelor of Divinity and Education and thus qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree." The Director's analysis was incomplete. In addition to possessing a bachelor's 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
degree, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) a Petitioner must also establish that she has five years of 
progressive experience in the specialty. On remand, the Director should evaluate the evidence, 
including two letters from.__ ______ ___, to determine if the Petitioner has established she is an 
advanced degree professional based on the definition found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, they must then establish 
eligibility for 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that we may, as matter of 
discretion, 2 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner incorrectly states that the Director concluded her proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit and national importance. Other than stating the standard, the Director did not 
conduct any analysis of the evidence submitted or provide any determination. Therefore, the Director 
should review the submitted evidence and provide a meaningful discussion of its deficiencies. 
For example, the Petitioner notes that the current labor shortage of teachers supports the national 
importance of her endeavor. However, the labor certification process itself is intended to address labor 
shortages and her proposed endeavor does not appear to alleviate the shortage of teachers to a degree 
that would be considered of national or global impact. While her response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE) explained the socio-economic impact of religion to the U.S.'s economy, the 
industry or field is not the lens through which we determine if a proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. Instead, we look at the impact of"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Id. at 889. Further, without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or 
job creation directly attributable to her future work, we cannot conclude that benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from her endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
She further asserts that her endeavor would help "[t]he large community of Brazilian children that 
lives in her city . . . as the communication barrier will cease to exist, and she will provide public 
services and ... mental health support and guidance to these kids and their families." While these 
factors may establish the substantial merit of her endeavor, they do not appear to reach the level of 
broader national or global impact that is required to find an endeavor has national importance. For 
example, in Dhanasar, we determined that a STEM teacher's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, 
but that the record did not establish his teaching activities would impact the field of education more 
broadly. Id. at 893. 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's 
decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
Similarly, herl !channel and her press coverage also do not speak to the broader implications 
of her specific endeavor. The article I lshows a photograph of her in a costume 
and quotes her belief that Christian churches should focus on growing children's faith to combat the 
rising secularism in the United States. While this article highlights the Petitioner's passion for 
children's ministry, and her thoughtful consideration of problems facing Christian churches, it does 
not discuss how it would impact the field of education or religious education more broadly. 
Here, the Director should determine whether the record shows, for example, that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor: (1) stands to sufficiently extend beyond her students to impact the field more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance; (2) offers original innovations that 
contribute to advancements or otherwise has broader implications for her field; or (3) has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation. 
Further, the Director's analysis regarding Dhanasar's prong two and prong three was also inadequate 
because it did not accord the Petitioner with a meaningful understanding of the reasons her evidence 
was insufficient. While we may agree with the Director's ultimate conclusion that she has not 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar analysis, an officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). Furthermore, a decision 
denying a benefit must include the specific reasons for denial and sufficiently explain the underlying 
deficiencies to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should determine anew whether 
the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional and provide a sufficient analysis under each 
of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3