dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 7, 2024 In Re: 31125021 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an administrative assistant in business, 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 the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree, but that the record did 
not establish her eligibility for a 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 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit 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 
te1m "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (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 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh , and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner worked as an administrative assistant at the in Brazil for nearly 13 
years. The Petitioner proposes to be a business manager providing companies with specialized 
services in sales, finance, human resources, and purchasing. The Petitioner plans to focus on the oil 
and gas, infrastructure, railway, pharmaceutical, and automobile industries. 
The Director determined the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
The only issue on appeal is whether she is eligible for and merits a waiver of the job offer requirement 
in the national interest. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first 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. The Director determined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial 
merit. We agree. 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director's erroneous referral to her as a lawyer undermined the 
Director's evaluation of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and its national importance. We 
acknowledge the Director's mistaken reference to the Petitioner as a lawyer in one part of her decision. 
The record does not reflect, however, that this mistake prejudiced the Petitioner as we find no error in 
the Director's ultimate determination. 
The Petitioner further asserts the Director ignored her individual contributions and potential 
implications of her work and did not consider her support letters. The Petitioner submitted letters from 
her past employers who praise her past work at the but do not address how her 
proposed endeavor would impact her field on the level of national importance. For example, 
_______ praises the Petitioner as a qualified professional "committed to creating and 
improving processes that generate value for any company" and 
describes the Petitioner as "a talent to be retained by any company that has the opportunity to 
count on her beautiful work." Neither Ms.I lnor Ms. specify how the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would have national or even global implications in any of the industries the Petitioner 
proposes to focus on, and they do not discuss how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor offers any other 
broader implications rising to the level of national importance. 
2 
I 
The Petitioner next asserts the Director failed to acknowledge the potential economic effects of her 
proposed endeavor. The Petitioner asserts her "specialization in financial and administrative 
management could significantly contribute to improving the financial health of businesses, leading to 
increased employment opportunities and economic prosperity." The Petitioner does not cite any 
evidence to support this claim. Rather, the Petitioner claims her proposed endeavor "aligns with the 
White House's initiative to promote small business growth" and she "will significantly contribute to 
the success of this initiative" through her expertise and skills. The Petitioner's former employers 
praise the Petitioner's past work in financial matters, but they do not discuss how her proposed 
endeavor would have any economic effect beyond the individual businesses at which she may be 
employed in the future. For example, states the Petitioner 
"showed her expertise by executing and assisting the financial budget, which brought a very significant 
result for the institution" and "strongly recommend[s] her as a distinguished professional." Ms. 
I ldoes not, however, discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or otherwise indicate that the 
Petitioner's work as a business manager would have significant positive economic benefits beyond 
the individual companies that may employ her in the future. 
On appeal, the Petitioner last asserts the Director did not consider her ability to foster cultural diversity 
and inclusion, social welfare, and cultural enrichment. The record does not specify how the Petitioner, 
as a business manager, would foster cultural diversity and inclusion, social welfare, and cultural 
enrichment, on a level of national importance. The Petitioner claims that with "her expertise in 
negotiating with suppliers from diverse backgrounds, [she] could contribute to multiculturalism within 
businesses and society at large, enriching the overall cultural fabric." The Petitioner does not cite any 
evidence to support this claim. In their letters, her former employers do not mention her work with 
suppliers or discuss how her proposed endeavor would foster cultural diversity and inclusion, social 
welfare, and cultural enrichment on a level of national importance. 
The relevant evidence does not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. 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, 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond 
her potential employers to impact her field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. Consequently, the Petitioner does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
As this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
determination of her eligibility under the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The Petitioner does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, 
she has not demonstrated that she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the 
national interest as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3