dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business And Hospitality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 21, 2025 In Re: 37043070 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business and hospitality management specialist, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska 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. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on 
a motion to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration, (2) be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw 
or policy, and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not satisfy these 
requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(4). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons 
for reconsideration and that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Board of 
Immigration Appeals generally requires that a motion to reconsider assert an error was made at the 
time of the previous decision. The very nature of a motion to reconsider is the claim that the original 
decision was defective in some regard. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 57 (BIA 2006). 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our prior decision we noted that the Petitioner's references to her prior academic and employment 
experience were material to the second Dhanasar prong-whether an individual is well positioned to 
advance a proposed endeavor. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 888 - 891 (AAO 2016). Because 
although the Petitioner had an advanced degree, an individual's prior academic and employment 
experience are immaterial to the issue of whether the potential prospective impact of the specific 
endeavor an individual proposes to undertake may have broader implications indicative of national 
importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. On motion, the Petitioner still has not 
established the national importance of her endeavor. 
The Petitioner previously stated that, despite her prior references to consultancy and entrepreneurship, 
"her intent is not to pursue an entrepreneurial venture but to contribute as a subject matter expert within 
established hospitality organizations." She generally reasserted on appeal that her "proposed endeavor 
aims at repositioning the U.S. hospitality industry, making it more robust, adaptable, and primed for 
growth in the post-pandemic era." However, we explained that in determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual 
will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
[ noncitizen] proposes to undertake" and "we consider its potential prospective impact," looking for 
"broader implications." Id. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national 
importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances" or those with "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or . . . other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. On motion, 
the Petitioner asserts that a more accurate characterization of her endeavor would be a Tourism and 
Hospitality Management Specialist focused on enhancing industry practices in the U.S. through 
innovative solutions. Therefore, the Petitioner asserts that she does not intend to engage in 
entrepreneurship but to contribute as a subject matter expert within established hospitality 
organizations. She further explains that her references to "entrepreneurial spirit" and 
"entrepreneurship and innovation" within her statements described her approach and mindset in 
driving growth and progress within her field, rather than indicating a self-employment or 
entrepreneurial pursuit. Regardless, on motion, the record does not show through supporting 
documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective employers or clients, to 
impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Moreover, without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, Third and D.C. Circuit Courts) 
in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
to her particular future work, the record does not show any benefits to the U.S. regional or national 
economy resulting from her services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Below we explained that the generalized "articles and reports" submitted by the Petitioner did not 
address the specific endeavor she proposed to undertake, and how the potential prospective impact of 
the specific endeavor she proposed may have broader implications indicative of national importance. 
See id. at 889-90. For example, the generalized information in the record regarding the hospitality 
industry and business administration did not discuss how the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed 
to undertake could have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive 
economic effects. See id. On motion the Petitioner argues that we contradicted Dhanasar because 
Dhanasar holds that, "[ e ]vidence that the endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic 
impact . . . is not required." However, there is a qualifying caveat to that premise because as 
Dhanasar further states, "an endeavor's merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable 
economic impact." However, this depends on the endeavor. And Dhanasar provides examples of 
such an endeavor as follows," ... endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of 
human knowledge may qualify." Here, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor does not meet that 
criterion. 
We noted that the opinion letters in the record referenced by the Petitioner on appeal contained 
conclusory statements serving as section headers, such as "[The Petitioner's] Endeavor Is Of 
Substantial Merit And National Importance," and "[The Petitioner's] Endeavor Has A National And 
Even Global Impact." However, despite referencing the Petitioner in the section headers, the 
substance of both opinion letters' bodies did not support the conclusory statements serving as section 
headers. Rather, the opinion letters discussed generalized information regarding "the economic impact 
of the travel and tourism industry," "[t]he primary way e-commerce will affect the economy," "the 
hospitality industry as a whole," "the hospitality sector," "the lodging sector," and similarly broad 
topics, but did not focus on the specific endeavor she proposed to undertake. The opinion letters did 
not specifically address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor could have national or even global 
implications within the field of hospitality or any other field, significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or other substantial positive economic effects, or other indicia of national importance, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. On motion, the Petitioner contends that we applied 
a level of scrutiny that exceeds the required standard, and that we erred by minimizing the weight of 
the two expert opinion letters. We disagree. Because the opinion letters did not support the conclusory 
statements with supporting information material to the issue of whether the specific endeavor the 
Petitioner proposed to undertake could have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance, they did not support the conclusion that the proposed endeavor could have national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. 
Below, the record did not establish the "established hospitality organizations" within which the 
Petitioner aspired to work, but it established that the proposed endeavor may benefit those unspecified 
hospitality organizations, their business partners, and their clients, customers, and guests. 
Additionally, the record did not establish how the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor 
the Petitioner proposed to undertake could have the type of broader implications indicative of national 
importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. Even if the record established how the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor could create a particular innovation, the record did not establish how 
3 
such an innovation would have national or even global implications within the field of hospitality, 
business administration, or any other field. See id. As another example, although the record provided 
generalized assertions regarding labor shortages and employment, the record did not specify any 
number of workers the Petitioner believed the specific endeavor she proposed to undertake would 
cause her employer(s)-or any other entity-to hire, the jobs those workers would perform, the wages 
the employer(s) would pay those workers, and other information that would address whether the 
proposed endeavor could have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial 
positive economic effects. See id. On motion, the Petitioner proffers that her personal statement 
demonstrates a robust commitment to introducing and implementing innovative practices across 
multiple facets of the hospitality industry which holds national significance. The Petitioner then 
restates her arguments as she did on appeal under separate headings. However, the Petitioner has not 
overcome the deficiencies we noted on appeal because although the record generally discussed types 
of innovations within the fields of hospitality and business administration, the record did not establish 
any particular innovation the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake may have, 
distinguishable from current practices and trends within the fields of hospitality, business 
administration, or any other field. 
As we explained above, a motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; (2) be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in 
the record at the time of the decision. However, the Petitioner's motion repeats and restates the 
arguments and documents she believes supports the national importance of her endeavor that were 
introduced earlier in these proceedings. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established we made a legal 
error in our conclusion. She has not supported her stated reasons with any pertinent precedent decision 
to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. The Petitioner's 
motion essentially expresses her disagreement with our conclusions. But merely disagreeing with our 
conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter oflaw is not a ground to reconsider our decision. 
See O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated how we erred in our previous decision on the Petitioner's appeal. 
Consequently, the motion does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider and does not 
overcome the reasons for our previous decision. Thus, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reconsidering our decision. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4