PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
MotionNational Interest Waiver · Motion to reconsider

Assistant professor of international studies

Education · decided 2022-06-13 · TSC · JUN132022_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot met
    Why
    CONCLUSION As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. p. 4
  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. See in text
  • Because the Petitioner has not established on motion that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. See in text

Main reasons given

  • As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. See in text
  • Accordingly, the motion to reconsider does not establish that the proposed endeavor would rise to the level o f national imp01iance under the preponderance o f evidence standard and that we erred by withdrawing the Director's conclusion to the contrary. See in text
  • We noted that, similarly, we concluded the petitioner in Dhanasar did not establish by the preponderance of the evidence that his proposed teaching activities meet the national impmiance element of the first prong. See in text
Show 3 more
  • Further,becausethePetitionerhasnotsatisfiedthefirst Dhanasar prong on motion, we need not address whether she has satisfied the second and third Dhanasar prongs, and we hereby reserve them. See in text
  • Specifically, we noted that, although the record indicates the endeavor would entail the Petitioner working, partly, as an assistant professor in international studies and, partly, as an international relations researcher, it does not establish how much time she will devote to teaching, as opposed to conducting research. See in text
  • We further noted that the record does not establish how much time the Petitioner intends to devote to research while also pursuing her consulting, analyst, peer review, and editorial board activities. See in text
Read the full decision (4 pages)

Objections found (5)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Prong 1Benefits limited to an employer or its clients
    We concluded that, to the extent that the endeavor would entail teaching international relations, "the record does not establish by a preponderance ofthe evidence that such activities would impact the field of international relations more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and university she may serve." See in text (p. 2)
  • Prong 1Job creation or economic claims unsupported
    Without more, the Petitioner's statement, quoted above, does not provide sufficient details, corroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 3 See in text (p. 3)
  • Prong 2Support letters generic or unsupported
    We further observed that the few letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's future research plans provide generalized and unsubstantiated descriptions, such as "groundbreaking," "influential," and "innovative," without elaborating on how the proposed endeavor would break new ground, influence the field of international relations research, and provide innovations that rise to the level of national importance. See in text (p. 2)
  • Prong 2Past record does not show influence or success
    We further observed that the few letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's future research plans provide generalized and unsubstantiated descriptions, such as "groundbreaking," "influential," and "innovative," without elaborating on how the proposed endeavor would break new ground, influence the field of international relations research, and provide innovations that rise to the level of national importance. p. 2
  • Prong 2Claims not backed by documents
    We further observed that the few letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's future research plans provide generalized and unsubstantiated descriptions, such as "groundbreaking," "influential," and "innovative," without elaborating on how the proposed endeavor would break new ground, influence the field of international relations research, and provide innovations that rise to the level of national importance. p. 2

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (4) AAO finding (6) Tagged objection (3)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 21025876 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date: JUNE 13, 2022

Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National Interest Waiver) The Petitioner, an assistant professor of international studies, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016).

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. Specifically, although the Director found that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance , the Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that a waiver of the job offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest.

We dismissed a subsequent appeal, first withdrawing the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor would have national importance, then concluding that the record did not satisfy the first two Dhanasar prongs, reserving our opinion on the third Dhanasarprong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that we misapplied Dhanasar and that the preponderance of evidence satisfies the Dhanasarprongs.

In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 . Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider.

Law

A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider.

Analysis

As noted above, we withdrew the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor would have national importance. Specifically, we noted that, although the record indicates the endeavor would entail the Petitioner working, partly, as an assistant professor in international studies and, partly, as an international relations researcher, it does not establish how much time she will devote to teaching, as opposed to conducting research. We concluded that, to the extent that the endeavor would entail teaching international relations, "the record does not establish by a preponderance ofthe evidence that such activities would impact the field of international relations more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the specific students and university she may serve."Benefits limited to an employer or its clients We noted that, similarly, we concluded the petitioner in Dhanasar did not establish by the preponderance of the evidence that his proposed teaching activities meet the national impmiance element of the first prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893.

We further noted that the record does not establish how much time the Petitioner intends to devote to research while also pursuing her consulting, analyst, peer review, and editorial board activities. We noted that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's research is "state-of-the-art" or how it provides "novel insights," given that the record establishes "that many others study, publish, and offer their research-based perspectives on similar topics" to those published by the Petitioner. We also observed that the record does not contain documentary evidence to support assertions that the Petitioner's research has been funded by the Defense Department's U.S. Southern Command. We further observed that the few letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's future research plans provide generalized and unsubstantiated descriptions, such as "groundbreaking," "influential," and "innovative," without elaborating on how the proposed endeavor would break new ground, influence the field of international relations research, and provide innovations that rise to the level of national importance.Support letters generic or unsupported See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)(holding that anagencyneednotcreditconclusoryassertionsinimmigrationbenefitsadjudications). Becausethe record does not establish that the Petitioner's international relations teachings would rise to the level of national importance, and because the record does not establish that the Petitioner's international relations research would rise to the level of national importance, we withdrew the Director's finding to the contrary.

On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner states that she provided her proposed endeavor in her personal statement,submittedinsupportofthepetition: "Inthecomingyears,Iintendtoextendmyresearch on _ _ _ _ _ _ foreign policy to support civil society as the cornerstone of improved maintenanceofpublicaffairsinemergingsocietiesandcountries." ThePetitioneraddsthat,inthat statement, she further stated thatherresearch would use "new and more advanced approaches to obtain a proper database of Isegmented by media, topic, target audience, and reach, that greatly improves the works of all analysts studyingI I" The Petitioner p. 3 further asserts on motion that "specific details of [the Petitioner's] employment pursuits or future activities, whether she is employed as an assistant professor, adjunct professor, or international relations researcher" are irrelevant to the issue of determining whether the proposed endeavor would have national importance. The remainder of the motion's discussion of the first Dhanasar prong characterizes aspects of our prior analysis as irrelevant.

In dete1mining national impmiance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specificendeavorthattheforeignnationalproposestoundertake." SeeDhanasar,26I&NDec.at 889. Dhanasarprovidedexamplesofendeavorsthatmayhavenationalimportance,asrequiredby the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from ce1iain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "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 only evidence of record that the Petitioner discusses, on motion to reconsider, is her own one- pagepersonalstatementsubmittedinsupportofthepetition. Otherwise,thePetitionercitestheappeal substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." See id. at 889- 90. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider does not establish that the proposed endeavor would rise to the level o f national imp01iance under the preponderance o f evidence standard and that we erred by withdrawing the Director's conclusion to the contrary. See id; see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76(AAO 2010).

Because the Petitioner has not established on motion that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. See8C.F.R.§103.5(a)(3),(4). Further,becausethePetitionerhasnotsatisfiedthefirst Dhanasar prong on motion, we need not address whether she has satisfied the second and third Dhanasar prongs, and we hereby reserve them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich 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).

The Petitioner refers to ournon-precedentdecision, specifically quoting its statement that our analysis ofa proposed endeavor "is not limited by a petitioner's occupation or educational status at the time o ffiling" and that "we consider [petitioners'] current and prospective job offers in this analysis only as they illustrate the capacity in which [they intend] to work." This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts ofthe individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings, the issues considered, and applicablelawandpolicy. InthePetitioner'scase,inourpriordecisionweconsideredthePetitioner'scurrentandprospective jobs in thecontextoftheextentto which theymayillustratethecapacityin which she intends to work-teaching international relations, researchingintemationalrelations, or a combinationofthetwo. dismissal notice, Dhanasar, and a non-precedent decision from 2018. Without more, the Petitioner's statement, quoted above, does not provide sufficient details, corroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has otherJob creation or economic claims unsupported

Conclusion

As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.