The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act.
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature).
- On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Id.
Analysis
USCIS concluded that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not satisfied the first and third prongs set forth in the Dhanasar precedent decision. 2 The sole issue to be determined therefore 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. 3 At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a Legal Fellow with~---------~ .____________________________,
4 He indicated that his "proposed endeavor is the protection of workers and consumers in the United States from corporate abuse of human rights." The Petitioner further stated:
This proposed endeavor seeks to collaborate with civil society organizations, law school clinics, and other human rights attorneys in the United States in protecting the rights of workers and safeguarding the interest of the consumers of products and services from corporate abuse, climate change crises from manufacturing companies, consumption of consumer goods that are products of forced and child labor globally, and prohibiting the imports of consumer goods of multinational corporations into the United States that have records of corporate abuses in their international supply chain through a partnership with the D .... I will in partnership with c=Jfile petitions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enforce the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit goods produced even in part with forced or prison labor from entering the United States. CBP can then issue Withhold Release Orders (WRO), which stops the goods at the border and prevents them from entering the U.S. market . . . . In collaboration withe=] I will leverage Section 307 ofthe Tariff Act by filing petitions with the CBP that include specific information about forced labor in the supply chain of businesses. I will use consumer protection laws in the U.S. to address business practices deemed unfair or misleading to consumers of goods and services. . . .
Furthermore, a different section of the Tariff Act, Section 337, through my collaboration with ~ will be used for human rights litigation at the International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial federal agency focused on trade. Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act, U.S. companies can bring unfair competition claims to the International Trade Commission (ITC), which can result in investigations and 2 The Petitioner received a Master of Laws degree in International Human Rights from.__________.in 2024. 3 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, "[t]o apply for the [national interest] exemption the petitioner must submit Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, in duplicate." Alternatively, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will accept parts J, K, and L of Form ET A 9089, Application for Pennanent Employment Certification. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-fchapter-5. Because the Petitioner has not submitted either ofthese forms, he has not properly applied for a national interest waiver. USCTS' decision, however, did not inform the Petitioner of this basis for denial. 4 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. p. 3 exclusion orders. A company producing goods in the U.S. could bring a claim against a company importing goods produced via unfair acts, such as forced or child labor.
These and other trade law-based strategies would be used to address corporate impunity for human rights and environmental abuses committed across borders.
As discussed below, we conclude the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar.
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. We agree with users' determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. users concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. This consideration may include whether the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance. Id. at 889-90. users determined the Petitioner did not establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed work. 5 On appeal, the Petitioner argues that users' decision "made an erroneous conclusion of law and fact that [his] proposed endeavor does not establish national importance." He contends that his undertaking stands to generate economic growth, improve workers' health, promote the accumulation of human capabilities, and contribute to investment in innovation. The Petitioner further asserts that users' decision failed to properly apply the evidentiary standard and analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar and overlooked documentation demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor. He also states that the decision incorrectly misidentified his field as "quantum computing." While we acknowledge that USeIS' decision contains two misstatements regarding the Petitioner's field ( one on page 4 and another on page 6), these minor errors are not so significant as to undermine the stated grounds for denial. 6 These two errors are, at most, harmless. See generally Matter ofO-RE-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding harmless or scrivener's errors). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with users' determination that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor.
In addition to his discussions relating to the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner provided information aboutl !reports on labor abuses in the Somaliland frankincense industry and the Mexican 5 USCTS' decision stated that the Petitioner had "not substantiated how the specific endeavor, which is working as a legal fellow, would have global or national implications to the field. The record does not identify the broader implications of the proposed endeavor, or explain how the proposed endeavor implicates matters rising to a level of national importance."Proposed endeavor too vague USCIS also determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated how his proposed endeavor offers "substantial positive economic effects."Job creation or economic claims unsupported
produce industry, and a report he wrote about gender-based violence against women in Cameroon. He also presented papers he authored discussing labor abuses in foreign countries (India, Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire, and Ghana) and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's slavery exception. This documentation of his prior work, however, is insufficient to show the broader implications of his specific proposed endeavor to protect workers and consumers in the United States from corporate abuse of human rights. The first prong of the Dhanasar framework focuses on the proposed endeavor and not on the Petitioner's prior work in the field. The national importance ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands separate and apart from his job experience. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted articles on the importance of using government trade strategy to combat forced labor, employing enforcement mechanisms to prohibit forced labor and child labor in global supply chains, taking action to prevent forced labor in the production of sugarcane in the Dominican Republic and in the Brazilian coffee industry, identifying indicators of forced labor, protecting human rights, and acting against forced labor. He also offered federal statutes aimed at prohibiting forced and child labor abuses, a local District of Columbia court ruling acknowledging that misrepresentation of forced labor-free products constitutes harm to consumers, a CBP "Forced Labor Allegation Submission Checklist," and a U.S. Department of Homeland Security press release regarding enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The Petitioner claims that this material supports the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of these government initiatives in general, but "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, while the documents help show the merit of his undertaking, none of the articles discuss the Petitioner or his planned projects, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from C-R-, an adjunct professor at I I Iand the Executive Director at~ and C-O-, Director of the ~----------h-.n-N-ig_e_r-ia-,..... discussing his work. For example, C-R- stated:
Since he was a student in my class, I have been impressed with [the Petitioner's] grasp of Nigerian law, including civil litigation and regulatory compliance, and his interest and willingness to view novel labor and legal issues from a comparative perspective.
[The Petitioner] proved himself to be a serious, committed student of the law.
We invited [the Petitioner] to come toc=]as a legal fellow because ofhis commitment to human rights, cultural and legal context in West Africa (where some of our work focuses), and his keen interest in the law. Ate=] we create and implement diverse legal strategies on behalf of communities impacted by corporate human rights and environmental abuse across the globe. This work requires an in-depth understanding of supply chains, an ability to be a generalist across many areas of law, as well as domestic and foreign law, and a willingness to push the bounds ofexisting law to create more just outcomes for the world's most vulnerable.
During his year as a legal fellow withe=] [the Petitioner] conducted research into legal and factual issues in the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Nigeria, and India. He has shown competence in researching legal issues in foreign jurisdictions. He also engaged p. 5 with international standards, including the eleven International Labor Organization indicators of forced labor.
Likewise, C-O- wrote that the Petitioner's "work, which requires an in-depth understanding of global supply chains, an ability to be a generalist across many areas of law, as well as domestic and foreign law, and a willingness to push the bounds of existing law, directly addresses inconsistencies in global enforcement."Inconsistencies in the record C-O- further indicated that the Petitioner's "commitment to human rights, his grasp of comparative law, and his ability to execute complex legal research in foreign jurisdictions make him a uniquely asset." In addition, C-O- identified several projects undertaken by the Petitioner as examples of his competency in human rights violation legal matters. The letters from C-R- and C-Omainly discuss the Petitioner's legal capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. Regarding the Petitioner' s proposed endeavor's prospective impact, C-R- asserted that the Petitioner' s expertise stands to not only strengthen I !legal strategies but also enhance their institutional capacity. C-R- also stated that the Petitioner's work is "advancing innovative legal strategies," but she did not offer specific examples ofhow these strategies stand to impact his field at a level indicative of national importance. Similarly, C-O- stated that that the Petitioner's work involves "high-impact legal strategies focused on supply chain transparency and corporate human rights abuses. The strategic use of U.S. regulatory mechanisms to address global labor violations is crucial for the development of ethical trade practices for the United States." C-O- further indicated that the Petitioner's "work is uniquely focused on solving chronic global legal and social problems through innovative, systemic solutions, demonstrating his exceptional value to the United States." Additionally, C-O- noted that the Petitioner's undertaking involves "improving the ethical standards of the U.S. economy and upholding fundamental human rights globally."
While the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is aimed at helping protect the rights of workers and safeguarding the interest of the consumers of products and services from corporate abuse, he has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed work would affect his field, corporate accountability, human rights initiatives, or regulatory compliance in the United States at a level indicative of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims. The letters from C-R- and C-O- do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance.
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his proposed endeavor aligns with U.S. national security and economic imperatives, translates international standards into domestic enforcement, utilizes broadly applicable measures and standards, and offers broad implications that transcend the client relationship. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to protect workers and consumers in the United States from corporate abuse of human rights, but he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that p. 6 the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond ~ and its projects to impact his field, corporate accountability, human rights initiatives, national security, regulatory compliance, or economic gains in the United States more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's legal projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890.
The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, has national or even global implications within the field, or has other broader implications indicating national importance.
B. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, determination of his eligibility under the second and third prongs ofthe Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
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. § 103.5(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 ofa 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.