The Petitioner - a designer of mathematical education programs - requests classification in the employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category and a waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has discretion to excuse job offers in this category - and thus requirements for certifications from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - if petitioners demonstrate that waivers of these U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national interest." Id.; see also Brasil v. Sec '.Y, Dep 't ofHomeland Sec., 28 F.4th 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding that national interest waivers are discretionary grants).
USCIS denied the petition. The Deputy Associate Director of Adjudications for Service Center Operations found the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 category and that his proposed endeavor has "substantial merit." But the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that: his endeavor has "national importance;" he is "well positioned" to advance it; or a waiver would ultimately benefit the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director misinterpreted and disregarded evidence.
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor. We will therefore dismiss the appeal.
Law
To demonstrate eligibility for national interest waivers, petit10ners must first establish their qualifications for the EB-2 category, either as members ofthe professions holding "advanced degrees," or as aliens of "exceptional ability" in the sciences, arts, or business. See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. To protect jobs for U.S. workers, this immigrant visa category generally requires prospective U.S. employers to offer aliens work and to obtain DOL certifications to permanently employ them in the country. See section 212(a)(5)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(D). Petitioners may avoid the p. 2 job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that waivers of the U.S.-worker protections would be "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
Neither the Act nor regulations define the term "national interest." So, to adjudicate these waiver requests, we have established a framework. If otherwise qualified as advanced degree professionals or aliens of exceptional ability, petitioners may warrant waivers ofthe job-offer and labor-certification requirements by demonstrating that:
- Their proposed U.S. work has "substantial merit" and "national importance;"
- They are "well positioned" to advance their intended endeavors; and
- On balance, waivers of the job-offer and labor certification requirements would benefit the United States.
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-91 (AAO 2016); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(5)(D)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
Analysis
A. The Petitioner and His Proposed Endeavor
The record shows that the Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics education from a university in his home country of Nigeria and a master's degree in mathematics from a university in Benin. He worked as a math teacher at various Nigerian schools for about 15 years. He also headed a school's math department, wrote a guide to Nigerian math entrance examinations, developed an online math channel, and authored published research articles.
Since 2022, the Petitioner has worked as a math teacher at a U.S. high school, where he won a "Beginning Teacher of the Year" award in 2023. He stated:
My proposed endeavor is to design and implement transformative math education programs in the United States, mainly focused on adult learners, utilizing differentiated instruction, active learning methodologies, and cutting-edge technologies ....
By equipping learners with advanced mathematical skills and promoting a growth mindset, I will enhance the U.S. workforce's capacity to meet the increasing demand for STEM [ science, technology, engineering, and math] professionals, drive innovation in critical industries, and maintain global economic competitiveness. Furthermore, addressing systemic barriers to equitable education will strengthen national unity and employer underrepresented groups, contributing to a more inclusive and resilient society.
To implement his endeavor, the Petitioner formed a U.S. company that would partner with schools, businesses, and other organizations to provide mathematical education programs. He stated that, while traditional math education programs focus on "memorization and mechanical problem-solving," his programs would center on "deep conceptual understanding, the p. 3 development of critical thinking, and fostering a growth mindset, particularly among advanced students."
The record supports the Director's findings that:
- the Beneficiary qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; and
- the proposed endeavor has substantial merit.
We will next review the Director's determination regarding the proposed endeavor's claimed national importance.
B. National Importance
When determining whether a proposed endeavor has national importance, USCIS must focus on the particular venture, specifically on its "potential prospective impact." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. "An undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. Also, "[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.
Ultimately, if the evidence ofrecord demonstrates that the person's proposed endeavor has the significant potential to broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment, or to contribute to the advancement of a valuable technology or field of study, it may rise to the level of national importance.
procedure used or the substance of decision reached"); see generally Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). 1 The Petitioner contends that the Director "heightened" Dhanasar's national importance criteria by requiring him to "demonstrate that there is an immediate demand for the company's services." He states:
"[D]emonstrating 'that there is an immediate demand for the company's services' is not a requirement of Matter of Dhanasar. Requiring proof of 'immediate demand' imposes a heightened, unsupported standard that misapplies governing precedent. As clarified in Dhanasar, national importance may be shown through significant potential to employ U.S. workers or substantial positive economic effects, particularly m economically depressed areas, criteria met by the Petitioner's endeavor.
( emphasis in original).
Under Dhanasar' s second prong, "the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals" is a factor in determining whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. But we agree with the Petitioner that such evidence does not relate to Dhanasar's first prong.
The Petitioner, however, has not explained how the Director's error harmed him. See SalmeronSalmeron, 926 F.3d at 1287; Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the record does not demonstrate his proposed endeavor's significant potential to employ U.S. workers or generate positive economic benefits. He submitted a plan indicating that, by its fifth operating year, his U.S. company would employ him and four other people, generating total revenues of $178,955 from 400 clients. He has not explained how a business with five employees, 400 clients, and total revenues of $178,955 would have economic impact at a nationally significant level. The Petitioner also points to evidence that the U.S. city where he intends to establish his company has numerous "Opportunity Zones."2 He states: "[T]he identification of [the city] as a federally designated Opportunity Zone supports the geographic rationale for piloting the program in a diverse, economically challenged area, where the Petitioner's endeavor would create measurable educational and employment impact."
Contrary to the Petitioner's statement, however, the entire city where he intends to establish his company is not an Opportunity Zone. Rather, certain sections of the city are Opportunity Zones. The Petitioner has not documented his intent to headquarter his company in a specific Opportunity Zone. Also, he has not explained how the company, with five employees and $178,955 in annual revenues after five years, would substantially benefit an Opportunity Zone.
The Petitioner claims that copies of articles and studies that he submitted show that his proposed endeavor meets Dhanasar's national importance requirement. He states:
These sources detail how widespread deficiencies in basic mathematical proficiency among adults are costing the U.S. economy trillions [ of dollars], perpetuating systemic inequities, and serving as a critical barrier to accessing high-growth STEM fields .... These studies further illustrate how scalable, evidence-based education initiatives like the Petitioner's can directly counter these trends by equipping underserved populations with the practical math skills needed to succeed in today's data-driven economy.
The Petitioner argues that the Director erred by disregarding this evidence. He states: The failure to discuss all elements of the evidence submitted with the original petition and RFE response served to the direct disadvantage ofthe Petitioner and is a significant defect in both the analysis of his satisfaction of this prong and the Request and Denial as a whole.
See Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1233 (E.D. Mich. 1994) ("[F]ailure to consider all of the relevant evidence submitted by a plaintiff constitutes an abuse of discretion.") The record, however, shows that the Director both considered and discussed the articles and studies that the Petitioner submitted. The Director stated:
The petitioner submitted multiple articles, studies, and reports for the national importance prong. The articles, studies, and reports provided the latest trends regarding the field of Mathematical Teaching and its national importance in the United States.
The petitioner has claimed that his proposed endeavor offers national importance to the United States for the following reason: Boost STEM education, Strengthening workforce development, and Enhance access to transformative math education. The petitioner cited the Department ofEducation, Department ofLabor, and Department of Defense to incorporate additional Mathematical Teaching into the nation's education system in order to transition adults into STEM career field[s]; to increase plus expand job opportunities for mid[-]career adults; address regional economic inequality, and strengthening U.S Global Competitiveness Through Inclusive STEM Education.
However, the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor as an Entrepreneur in the field of Mathematical Teaching has national importance as there is no further detail and no documentary evidence demonstrating a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or [that the endeavor] has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area.
Also, the Director need only have considered all relevant evidence. See Kazemzadeh v. US Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (I Ith Cir. 2009). But, where he gave "reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings," he need not "address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented." Id.
Further, the articles and studies that the Petitioner submitted do not establish the claimed national importance ofhis proposed endeavor. He has not sufficiently explained how his U.S. company would distribute enough of his mathematical education programs to combat adult innumeracy on a national level. As previously indicated, his plan indicates that, after five operating years, his company would serve 400 clients. "At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large." 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.5(D)(3). We agree that, near his proposed business, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would help combat adult innumeracy. But, to obtain a national interest waiver, he must show that his specific proposed endeavor has broader, national implications.
The Petitioner contends that the Director "conflated" the Petitioner's proposed employment with his proposed endeavor. He states:
The Petitioner's employment as an Entrepreneur in the field ofMathematical Teaching, and the associated job duties and responsibilities, should accordingly only be considered as a vehicle by which to achieve or otherwise further [the] endeavor, and we respectfully request that the adjudicating officer base the national importance assessment on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as is required by the controlling precedent. Any inappropriate conflation between the proposed endeavor and proposed employment would serve to the direct disadvantage ofthe Petitioner and again manifest as an abuse of discretion on the part of the adjudicating officer by and through the use of a novel or unique criterion to serve as a bar from approving a petition.
But, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, Dhanasar does not distinguish between a petitioner's proposed endeavor and their proposed employment. Rather, in determining the national importance of the petitioner's proposed endeavor, Dhanasar focused on his specific proposed employment, i.e., "engag[ing] in research and development relating to air and space propulsion systems, as well as to teach aerospace engineering"). Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 891. Under USCIS policy: [i]n determining national importance, the officer's analysis focuses on what the person will be doing rather than the specific job title or occupational classification. The analysis considers whether the petition contains substance that explains and substantiates how working in the proposed endeavor meets the national importance standard.
We agree that, just as the documentary evidence in Dhanasar demonstrated the national importance of research on hypersonic technologies, the Petitioner's articles and studies document the national importance of combating adult innumeracy in the United States. 3 But the cases of Dhanasar and the Petitioner differ in an important way. The petitioner in Dhanasar demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor would advance the hypersonic technologies field, as he was a researcher and his research would be published and thus made available to others in his field. In contrast, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that others in his field could access his mathematical education programs or their proposed distribution on a nationally significant level. He therefore has not demonstrated the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also notes that the Director's RFE asked for evidence that his proposed endeavor "[i]mpacts a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives." He states that, despite his submission of such evidence, the Director did not find his endeavor to have national importance. He states: "The substantial probatory evidence presented in this case must account for the satisfaction of the first prong [of the Dhanasar analysis], as USCIS itself has acknowledged that this evidence is crucial in establishing the national importance criterion."
But, to the extent the RFE suggested that a government agency's description of a matter as nationally important or the implementation of national initiatives about the matter can solely demonstrate an endeavor's national importance, the RFE erred. Such evidence would likely establish the endeavor's substantial merit. But that evidence, alone, would not establish national importance because it would not show a specific endeavor's broader implications.No broader implications shown See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.5(D)(3) ("At issue is whether the petitioner can demonstrate that the person's own individual endeavor stands to have broader implications, such as for a field, a region, or the public at large.") The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the RFE's purported error harmed him. See SalmeronSalmeron, 926 F.3d at 1287; Matter of O-R-E-, 28 T&N Dec. at 336 n.5. He therefore has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance.
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Criteria
To obtain a national interest waiver, a petitioner must satisfy all three prongs ofour Dhanasar analysis. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889. Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the claimed national importance of his proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong, we need not review the Director's determinations regarding the remaining two prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions).
Conclusion
The Petitioner demonstrated his eligibility for EB-2 classification and that his proposed U.S. endeavor has substantial merit. But he has not established the claimed national importance of his venture. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.