dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Barbering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2024 In Re: 30354484 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a barber and barber instructor, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it 
is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record 
did not demonstrate the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's , Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. Exceptional 
ability means adegree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, 
or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation that satisfies at 
least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).1 Meeting at least three 
criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If a petitioner 
does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation , a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 3 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner 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 of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion,4 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish abarbershop and barber school business for which he would work 
as its manager, barber, and barber instructor. The Director determined that the Petitioner established 
his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. However, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
A. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
In determining the Petitioner's eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability, the Director did not provide an explanation for this decision, only briefly stating 
in a request for evidence notice that the Petitioner "met at least three criteria."5 Upon de nova review, 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
The Petitioner claimed that he meets four of the six evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Petitioner does not meet the 
initial evidentiary requirements for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted 
and then , if it satisfies the required number of criteria , considered in the context of a final merits determination); see 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at F.5(B)(2). 
4 See Flores v. Garland , 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh , and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
5 The Director's decision states in a brief sentence that the Petitioner met the criterion for a license to practice the profession 
or certificate for a particular occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) without an explanation for this determination. 
This determination appears to be in error since the Petitioner did not claim or offer evidence for his eligibility under this 
criterion . The Director 's decision did not specify any other criteria met by the Petitioner. 
2 
An official academic record showing that the individual has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution 
of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner submitted a course certificate from I I stating that he '"concluded the 
Traditional Barbering Course" with 800 class hours of "[h]aircut, shaving, finishing, and care 
techniques necessary for the practice of the barber profession .... " The certificate includes a list of 
the course content, including theoretical concepts, practical concepts, and internship. The Petitioner 
also submitted certificates indicating he attended multiple workshops relating to barbering. 
However, the Petitioner has not established that any of the certificates meet the plain language of the 
regulation. The record does not include evidence relating to the parties issuing these certificates. The 
Petitioner has not sufficiently established that any of the certificates were issued from a "college, 
university, school, or other institution of learning" or that the certificates are "an official academic 
record." Therefore, the Petitioner has not established he meets the requirements for the criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the individual has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for 
which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The record contains letters ofrecommendation from two of the Petitioner's barber colleagues and from 
one of his barber clients attesting to his skills as a barber. However, the letters do not meet the plain 
language of the criterion because they are not from his current or former employer(s). Also, the letters 
do not indicate his dates of employment, his job duties, or whether he worked in a full-time capacity. 
Because the evidence provided does not demonstrate that he has at least ten years of full-time 
experience in his occupation as a barber and barber instructor, the Petitioner has not established that 
he meets the plain language of the criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted astatement from an accountant listing service revenues 
and billing for the company, for each month of 2021. He also submitted print 
outs from three salary-related websites indicating the average salary of a barber in Brazil. However, 
the accountant's statement relates to the company, and does not indicate the 
Petitioner earned a salary or renumeration from this company. The record does not include evidence 
showing the revenue for ______ was the Petitioner's salary or renumeration for his 
services as a barber or as a barber instructor. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a brief article summarizing his barber work and his 
business, as well as advertisements for his barber instruction workshops. While the documents 
3 
indicate the Petitioner is a barber who offers barber instruction workshops, they do not show that he 
has been recognized for his achievements or significant contributions to his field of barbering or barber 
instruction, as required under the criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated he meets 
this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F). Because the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence 
requirements, we need not conduct a final merits analysis to determine whether the evidence in its 
totality shows that he is recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Nevertheless, we advise that 
we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the recognition required for classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. 
For the above stated reasons, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner is eligible 
for the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or 
business. 
B. National Interest Waiver 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification, and therefore is not eligible for a waiver of that classification's job offer requirement. 
However, we wi II discuss whether the Petitioner demonstrated a waiver of the labor certification would 
be in the national interest, the basis for the Director's decision. 
The Director found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit and is of national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, or 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 under Dhanasar's third prong. The Director did not address whether the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong. Upon de nova 
review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a waiver 
of the labor certification would be in the national interest. 6 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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 as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a manager, barber, and barber instructor for 
his new barbershop and barber school business located in south Florida. The Petitioner states his 
business would "offer a range of hair and beard services for men, hair cutting services for women and 
children, as well as barber training courses." The business plan indicates the business would also 
"sell an array of on-trend, premium haircare, shaving, and cosmetic products." The Petitioner plans 
6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
to expand the business to additional locations in I I Florida; Texas; and New York. Based on the 
foregoing, the Petitioner has established his proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and we withdraw 
the Director's determination to the contrary. 
With respect to national importance, the Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his 
proposed endeavor "stands to impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with 
having national importance. Nor has [the Petitioner] shown that their specific work would have 
broader implications in the personal care services industry." The decision further states, "Here, the 
record does not demonstrate ... how [the Petitioner's] endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
the clients that agree to utilize their services, to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly 
at a level commensurate with national importance." 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director incorrectly applied law or policy, and "the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record." (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner indicates that 
the Director implemented an incorrect policy without notice depriving him "of his right to regular 
process and is in violation ofregulation and binding service policy" under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)(iv). 
In considering national importance of his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner argues that the Director 
only considered geography and employment, while disregarding other criteria such as national 
initiative. The Petitioner argues "the decision seems to suggest that such evidence that relates to [his] 
proposed endeavor as impacting a matter that the government has described as subject of national 
initiative or having national importance was evaluated with diminished evidentiary weight or 
dismissed in its totality." He further argues, "USCIS derogatorily and erroneously equates the size of 
geographical implication and the potential to employ U.S. workers as failure to show national 
importance." Upon de novo review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
satisfies the national importance element of Dhanasar 's first prong, as discussed below. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that in addition to hiring employees and generating revenue, he would 
be "an instructor, a teacher, a mentor, and an example for hundreds of people who need a job and a 
position in society." He argues that his proposed endeavor would improve "societal welfare having 
substantial positive effect." In addition to his business increasing the U.S. economy, he contends the 
"vocational learning opportunities play a critical role in skill development and employability." He 
explains the importance of vocational development having theoretical knowledge and practical skills. 
The Petitioner relies on his professional knowledge and experience to show that he would teach skills 
to "underprivileged young people, who will have a trade, a job, a professional activity that gives them 
security, dignity, and a position in society" while equipping "the students to earn twice as much as 
what their family would earn combined." 
5 
The Petitioner's claimed societal welfare benefits are described in his statements provided with his 
response to a request for evidence. He claims that his vocational training of barber techniques will 
benefit underprivileged and unemployed young people by giving them an occupation and an income. 
The Petitioner intends to "impart education and skill development in youth so that they can Iive a I ife 
of dignity and respect" to promote financial independence, to develop skills that are not seasonal or 
topical, to improve chances of employment, and to earn a dependable livelihood for their families. 
The Petitioner further points out that the training program will not only teach skills, but would teach 
students "to communicate, work in teams and accomplish projects." 
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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 
l&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, the Petitioner's teaching to vocational barber students and to existing 
barbers at workshops does not rise to the level of having national importance. The record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field of personal care 
and barber services, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n 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. The evidence 
does not suggest that the Petitioner's work as manager, barber, and barber instructor for his new 
barbershop and barber school business would impact the personal care and barber services field more 
broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also argues his proposed endeavor has economic benefits. Instead of 
"merely" generating revenue for his private business and individuals, he argues that his business 
"actively creates financial bridges, and prompts economic developments that enhance and improve the 
functionality and monetary output of the nation's economy." The Petitioner's business plan focuses 
on the potential economic benefits of his proposed endeavor through the business' job creation and 
training of skilled barbers. The plan states, "[The business] will contribute to a reduction in the 
national unemployment rate by creating direct jobs and supporting indirect jobs." Also, the plan 
maintains that the sale of hair products "will support employment throughout the supply chain." The 
business plan also describes the business' intended location and start up plans; the Petitioner's 
professional experience; his ownership of the business; his intended roles as manager, barber, and 
barber instructor; the business' services; a market analysis of the barber industry in the south Florida 
area; and the business' projected marketing, financing, and staffing. 
The business plan projects that in five years the business wi 11 create seven direct jobs; generate annual 
revenue of approximately $550,000 while maintaining a 15% net profit margin; pay approximately 
$345,000 in wages; and generate over $50,000 in payroll taxes. Although we acknowledge these 
projections, the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for the plan's financial and staffing 
projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized. The Petitioner has not 
provided corroborating evidence to support his claims that his business' future staffing levels and 
business activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underprivileged individuals, south 
Florida, and the United States. The Petitioner's claims that his barbershop and barber school business 
will benefit the U.S. economy and enhance societal welfare have not been established through 
independent and objective evidence. The Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his 
endeavor has the potential to provide economic and societal welfare benefits. The Petitioner must 
6 
support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 376. He has not done so here. 
The Petitioner expresses his desire to improve the quality of life for his prospective students by 
providing them with professional skills and economic stability, and to contribute economically to the 
United States. However, he has not established with specific, probative evidence that his endeavor 
will have broader implications in his field, will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
will have other substantial positive economic and social welfare effects to Florida or the United States. 
Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record lacks evidence 
showing that creating seven jobs; generating annual revenue of approximately $550,000 while 
maintaining a 15% net profit margin; paying approximately $345,000 in wages; and generating over 
$50,000 in payroll taxes in a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. Also, without 
sufficient documentary evidence that his proposed job duties as the manager, barber, and barber 
instructor for his barbershop and barber school business would impact the personal care services 
industry more broadly, rather than benefiting his business and his proposed clients, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
The business plan further explains that the business' barber vocational trainings and workshops will 
"increase the number of skilled barbers in the [United States]" which will help "meet the growing 
demand for these services" and contribute "to the skilled labor market overall." His statements and 
business plan explain the expected population growth of the south Florida area. He claims his business 
would benefit from the population growth and would benefit economically from the affluent area 
having a higher annual income and disposable income for barber services. He further maintains the 
personal care and service occupations are expected to grow at afaster rate than other occupations. He 
also stresses the need for entrepreneurs in the United States and their benefits to the U.S. economy. 
The record includes articles related to the decrease of entrepreneurs in the United States and the 
expected growth in the beauty and personal care products market in the United States. With the appeal, 
the Petitioner also provides an article related to the importance of vocational training. 
We recognize the importance of the personal care industry and related careers to the U.S. economy, 
and the significant contributions from immigrants who become successful entrepreneurs in the United 
States. However, merely working in the personal care field or starting abarbershop and barber school 
business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead of 
focusing on the importance of an industry or field, or ashortage of workers in a field, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor 
and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even 
global implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[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. The articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact, 
job creation, or societal welfare benefits specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Beyond general assertions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the work he proposes to undertake 
offers innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader 
7 
implications for his field. The economic and societal welfare benefits that the Petitioner claim depend 
on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his 
proposed work for his barbershop and barber school business and the claimed economic and societal 
welfare benefits to the United States. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 
516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Also, 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8