dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 21, 2023 In Re: 27449182 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, 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 EB-2 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 that the record did not 
establish that it would be in the national interest to grant the Petitioner a discretionary waiver of the 
job offer requirement. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) 
of the Act. An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign 
equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent 
of a master's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(k)(2) . 
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 
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 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. 
II. ADVANCED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
The Director's decision does not directly address the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as 
a member of the professions possessing an advanced degree and instead focuses solely on her 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner provided: (1) an official academic record from a Brazilian university showing that she 
was awarded a bachelor's degree in business pedagogy (Bacharel em Pedagogia) in December 2010 
after completing five years of post-secondary study; (2) an official academic record documenting her 
completion of a one-year post-graduate specialization in management and human resources; (3) an 
evaluation of her educational credentials; and (4) a letter from her Brazilian employer documenting her 
work experience in the areas of management and human resources since 2010. 
The evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of a bachelor's degree, 
followed by five years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience in her specialty, and 
therefore has an advanced degree as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Accordingly, she established 
her eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver 
under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as described in her statements and a five-year business plan, is to 
manage a Florida limited liability company providing consulting services in the corporate training 
sector. According to the submitted business plan, the Petitioner's company will offer its business 
clients several one-day training workshops that will accommodate groups of 20 to 30 people per 
session and are "designed to build more humane organizational environments where connections 
between leaders, employees, partners, and customers are based on empathy, understanding and respect 
for diversity." The record reflects that the Petitioner has over 10 years of experience in management, 
human resources, and corporate training and development, and that she has engaged in a similar 
endeavor in Brazil. 
The Director concluded that, although the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed 
endeavor, and that she is well-positioned to advance it, she had not demonstrated the endeavor's 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
national importance, and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored or mischaracterized credible and probative 
evidence, misapplied established legal standards for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, 
and inflated the standard of review above the preponderance of the evidence standard. For the reasons 
provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. While we do not discuss every piece of evidence 
individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
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, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. 
The record includes information from the U.S. Department of Labor which describes the duties and 
occupational outlook for training and development specialists and general and operations managers. 
The Petitioner also submitted industry reports on the job training and business coaching industries, as 
well as media and government reports that discuss the value of investment in employee engagement 
and professional development, the history and future of the operations management field, the global 
talent shortage for high-skill positions, the challenges of attracting and retaining talented managers, 
and other articles related to the operations management field and the impact of employee training and 
development programs on business outcomes. Based on this evidence, the record supports the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as a manager in the 
professional training and development field has substantial merit. 
However, in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
industry or profession in which the individual will work. In Dhanasar, we emphasized that "we look 
for broader implications" of the specific 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." 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor will not only directly employ U.S. 
workers and contribute tax revenue to the U.S. economy but will also "have multiple positive effects 
on the U.S. marketplace, thus enhancing business operations on behalf of the nation and contributing 
to a streamlined economic landscape." She farther asserts that the services her company provides 
"will culminate in sustainable growth and financial returns for served organizations - creating positive 
ripple effects for ... employees, investors and overall community." 
We have reviewed the staffing and revenue projections in the submitted business plan. The Petitioner 
projects that her company will employ five foll-time and 10 part-time employes in three states within 
five years and during that period, cumulatively pay wages of over $1 million, generate gross revenues 
of over $2.2 million, and contribute over $156,000 in tax revenue to the economy. 
3 
Not only are these employment and revenue projections not supported by details showing their basis 
or an explanation of how they will be realized, but they also do not demonstrate a significant potential 
to either employ U.S. workers or to substantially impact the regional or national economy. 
Specifically, the record does not support that the direct creation of fifteen additional foll- and part­
time jobs in this sector or the expected tax revenue generated by the company will have a substantial 
economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner states she intends to "help fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones" inl IThe accompanying business plan indicates 
her company will open branches in "selected HUBZones" in these cities, but does not farther elaborate 
on these plans. 2 The Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that her business will be located in 
one or more HUBZones. Further, she did not indicate that her proposed endeavor would participate 
in the HUBZone program or that it would be eligible to do so. While it appears the Petitioner may 
have intended to equate a designated HUBZone with an "economically depressed area," the record 
does not support a conclusion that this is an equitable comparison. Finally, she has not otherwise 
claimed or provided evidence that the areas where her company intends to operate are economically 
depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in those areas, or that her endeavor 
would offer a region or its population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, 
business activity, or related tax revenue. 
We recognize that the Petitioner's consulting activities in the corporate training field are intended to 
lead to improvements in employee morale and productivity and increased employee retention rates, 
which may indirectly result in increased revenues for her business clients. However, the record lacks 
sufficient evidence that these gains would be significant enough to establish her proposed endeavor's 
national importance. While any increased business activity has the potential to positively impact the 
economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity resulting from her business 
would rise to the level of having regional or national economic impacts. Despite her claims that her 
proposed activities will result in a "streamlined economic landscape" throughout the United States, 
the Petitioner does not offer an evidentiary basis to conclude that the "ripple effects" of her proposed 
endeavor will have such far-reaching results. The record does not support a determination that any 
indirect benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
See id. at 890. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will have broader implications 
in her field or industry. We determined in Dhanasar 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. 
26 I&N Dec. at 893. Here, the Petitioner, through her company, intends to deliver one-day training 
workshops that focus on productive communication, leadership, empathy, and unlocking creativity in 
the workplace. The Petitioner estimates that she will deliver 29 workshops to her business clients in 
the first year and approximately 150 annual workshops by year five. Like the petitioner in Dhanasar, 
2 Under the HUBZone program, the U.S. government seeks to fuel small business growth in historically underutilized 
business zones, with a goal of annually awarding at least 3% of federal contract dollars to HUBZone-certified companies 
annually. See "HUBZone Program," https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/hubzone­
program. 
4 
the Petitioner has not established how her teaching or trammg activities would have broader 
implications in her field that reach beyond the participants in her workshops. The record does not 
establish, for example, that she plans to disseminate her training methods or course materials such that 
her specific endeavor would provide a platform for the introduction of new training processes or 
methodologies or that she would otherwise be in a position to influence the broader professional 
training and development sector. 
Finally, to illustrate the potential impact of her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner points to her past 
employment experience and her academic qualifications in human resources management and 
corporate-focused business education. We reviewed her statements and several reference letters from 
her employers and past clients. The authors of the letters praise the Petitioner's abilities as a corporate 
trainer, her personal attributes, her subject area expertise, and her past contributions to their individual 
organizations. However, they do not discuss her specific proposed endeavor or explain why it has 
national importance. For example, several of the letters are from former clients in Brazil who state 
that the training she provided has increased their individual companies' productivity, but they do not 
speak to the potential broader implications of her work. As such, the letters are not probative of the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong of Dhanasar. Furthermore, we note that the Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, education, and experience are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, 
which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 26 I&N Dec at 890. The 
issue under the first prong is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the national importance of her 
proposed work. 
While the Petitioner's evidence shows how her endeavor stands to positively impact her business 
clients and their employees, it does not demonstrate how her endeavor will have a broader impact 
consistent with national importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
endeavor meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning her eligibility under the third prong 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5