dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management / Renewable Energy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 15, 2024 In Re: 29836252 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a project director, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree or of exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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. 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and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to 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 to be discretionary in nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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. 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 l&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 an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion 
grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a petitioner 
classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen' s proposed endeavor has 
both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor, and (3) 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner's Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner's form I-140 indicated that they proposed to endeavor to work as a project director 
launching "[geographical information system] GIS [and] digital initiatives for renewable energy 
business expansion by leading managers of highly efficient teams to handle fast growing business 
units." But the description of the proposed endeavor in the Petitioner's letter accompanying their 
petition was markedly different. The letter described the endeavor as "Business Management for 
Economic Development ... dedicated to growing the United States Economy by guiding both leading 
organizations ... as well as mentoring small to medium, minority owned operations ... " In essence, the 
Petitioner's endeavor as proposed in their initial petition contemplated guiding or mentoring 
entrepreneurs from minority or underrepresented backgrounds who owned small and medium 
enterprises (SME) to increase diversity, equity and inclusion in the ownership and operation of 
successful businesses. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner highlighted their "technical 
background" as a "business executive and geospatial intelligence expert with 12 years of experience 
2 
in the business and energy industries." The Petitioner listed identifying new markets and 
opportunities, improving efficiency and profitability, reducing risk, and building relationships with 
customers and suppliers through consulting services. So from the time they filed their initial filing 
petition to when they responded to the RFE, the Petitioner's manner for carrying out their proposed 
endeavor transformed from serving as a project director to functioning as a consultant. 
Both in their initial petition and response to the RFE, the Petitioner did not readily identify how they 
intended to prosecute their proposed endeavor. For example, they did not identify a project, 
entrepreneurial endeavor, or employment opportunity that would host the proposed endeavor. On 
appeal, the Petitioner stated they were "currently pursu[ing]" their endeavor as part of their current 
employment with I I The Petitioner stated they "identif[y] and implemen[t] 
renewable investment opportunities for I I closely linked to US national interests in the 
developing green and sustainable domestic energy production and energy conservation." 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor has thus developed in a scattershot manner in the proceedings 
below. The Petitioner's expression of their proposed endeavor has morphed in response to the 
Director's RFE and on appeal. Essentially, the Petitioner has expressed their endeavor in three 
disparate ways, as we have outlined above; (i) as a project director initially with their petition, (ii) as 
a business manager for economic development by elevating the profile and therefore profitability of 
entrepreneurs coming from minority and underrepresented backgrounds owning and operating SMEs, 
and (iii) as a geospatial intelligence and business executive consultant utilizing GIS to enhance the 
profitability of large companies and SMEs in the energy industry. The Petitioner also couched their 
endeavor in terms of relating to "leading organizations going through business expansion" and cites 
their "key achievements include (sic) creating a startup company (Human capital development 
company platform) and a consulting company! la consulting company for SMEs and 
startups ... " targeting their services to "clients contracting" them for services. The Petitioner intends 
to target large as well as small and medium sized enterprises, especially those owned and operated by 
minorities or traditionally underrepresented communities. The three ways the Petitioner exhibited 
their proposed endeavor had meaningful differences. The record reflects the Petitioner would be 
engaged in renewable energy business expansion and people management as a project director. But 
the Petitioner's letter accompanying their petition focused on mentorship and development of 
individuals from underrepresented or minority backgrounds to, essentially, advise them on owning 
and operating profitable businesses. The use of GIS and the renewable energy sector of the economy 
were not mentioned or contemplated in the Petitioner's letter. Then, in response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner combined the two separate expressions of their endeavor but expanded their role from 
directing individual projects to source renewable energy to consulting and "leading organizations 
going through business expansion." So it is unclear what endeavor the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake in the United States; project management, guidance and mentoring, or overall business 
development. We consequently conclude the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is ill-defined and we are 
unable to evaluate it for eligibility under any of the three prongs contained in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. So the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, in the national interest. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
1. Substantial Merit 
3 
It is not possible to determine the substantial merit of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot 
consistently articulate its nature. As we discussed above, the Petitioner adjusted their proposed 
endeavor at the procedural stages below. For example, the Petitioner did not state that they intended 
a consulting component to their proposed endeavor in their initial petition. But, in the RFE response 
they introduced a consulting component. And, whilst their initial submission heavily emphasized their 
mentorship and guidance of minority and underrepresented entrepreneurs to form and operate SMEs, 
the response to their RFE introduced their "technical background" to substantiate their use of GIS in 
their endeavor. The addition of these new components to their proposed endeavor did not enhance or 
clarify their intentions. It introduced ambiguity and uncertainty. The proposed endeavor changed at 
RFE response into a wholly different one centered around consulting for the economic benefit of 
companies and not to enhance diversity and representation in ownership of SMEs. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to 
a petition to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner's use of GIS was not to mentor and guide 
minority and underrepresented entrepreneurs but to identify new markets and opportunities, improve 
efficiency and profitability, reduce risk, and build relationships with customers and suppliers. And it 
was unclear in the RFE response how the proposed endeavor sought to accomplish these goals, either 
through continuing employment, setting up their own entrepreneurial endeavor, or making themselves 
available for employment with other entities. The Petitioner's RFE response constituted a materially 
different endeavor transformed from a project director to a business executive utilizing GIS rendered 
their proposed endeavor ill-defined and amorphous. The Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity 
into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit. So we disagree with 
the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was substantially meritorious and 
withdraw it. 
2. National Importance 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of their 
proposed endeavor. Although the evidentiary standard in immigration proceedings is the lowest 
preponderance of the evidence standard, the burden is on the Petitioner alone to provide material, 
relevant, and probative evidence to meet that standard. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. A 
petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate 
burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also the definition 
of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof 
includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a petitioner must satisfy 
the burden of production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence 
in the form of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres to the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy 
provisions sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. The Petitioner submitted their 
professional plan, educational documents and certificates, curriculum vitae, two expert opinion letters, 
reports authored by the Petitioner, and letters of recommendation to bolster their assertions of the 
national importance of their proposed endeavor. 1 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
As we described above, the Petitioner has not consistently presented their proposed endeavor in a 
manner reliable enough to evaluate its national importance. This fact by itself would require us to 
conclude the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of a proposed endeavor with 
material, relevant, and probative evidence in the record. But even if we were to set aside the shifting 
manner in which the Petitioner communicated the proposed endeavor, we would still conclude that it 
did not rise to a level of national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework because none of the three variations of the proposed endeavor the Petitioner described rises 
to a level of national importance as required in the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In determining national importance under Dhanasar, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In 
Dhanasar, we farther noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that 
"[ a ]n undertaking may have a 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. What is critical in determining the national importance of a proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of Dhanasar is whether the proposed endeavor has a potential prospective impact with broader 
implications which rise to the level of national importance. So it is not what duties or what occupation 
the noncitizen will fill or perform but their actual plan with their occupation and duties that is 
examined. 
The infirmity in the Petitioner's tripartite description of their endeavor is patent upon examination into 
the evidence and argument they introduced into the record. The Petitioner's evidence and argument 
do not help them carry their burden of production and persuasion because it does not relate to the 
proposed endeavor's national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that their endeavor has national importance because of the Petitioner's 
past record, that they are currently engaged in their proposed endeavor, and that the United States has 
"current national priorities for offshore drilling." When evaluating the national importance of a 
proposed endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar, we are concerned with its potential prospective 
or future impact. The Petitioner's demonstration of prior similar work does not have an influence on 
the proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact based on its national importance. In each of the 
endeavors the Petitioner presented for our evaluation over the course of the proceedings below, the 
Petitioner emphasized their execution of the respective proposed endeavor. For example, the 
Petitioner stated that their past work experience with I I and achievements whilst in 
their employ render their work in their proposed endeavor likely to achieve results that will benefit the 
United States national interest. On appeal, the Petitioner attempts to convince us that their past success 
with energy exploration, project organization, and mentorship elevates any endeavor they propose to 
undertake in the United States with similar characteristics to a level of national importance. They also 
highlight their self-professed "strong operational background and leadership" as evidence that the 
consulting role in their proposed endeavor is nationally important to "support SMEs as they develop 
economically viable products." But the Petitioner's claims are not persuasive because the Petitioner's 
contention spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dhanasar framework's first prong. The 
first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor; not on the Petitioner's execution of that proposed 
endeavor. The Dhanasar framework is consequently unconcerned with the success of the proposed 
endeavor or the Petitioner's track record in their field of endeavor previously. The Petitioner's 
5 
contentions about their successful past performance in the field of endeavor they propose, as well as 
evidence and information of their achievements and recognition, would better serve a demonstration 
of eligibility under the Dhanasar framework's second prong. So the Petitioner's assertions about their 
successful career-to-date, as well as evidence and information of their achievements and recognition 
such that they are, are irrelevant to an examination of their eligibility under the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. 
In the same vein, the letters of recommendation the Petitioner submitted do not illustrate the 
prospective positive impact of the triumvirate components of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
because they focus on the Petitioner's past achievements and not on the proposed endeavor's broader 
benefits or initiatives implicating matters of national importance. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron Int 'l, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, the submission ofletters or opinion statements from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The Petitioner submitted 
two expert opinion statements. One was authored byl lassociate professor, electrical and 
computer engineering,! I The other was authored by I I professor at 
the I But these opinion statement do not illustrate how the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor rises to a level impacting national importance either. Both opinions heavily 
discuss and root their conclusions in the Petitioner's ability and achievement in their field. As we 
have stated previously the first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor. So, a petitioner's ability and 
achievement are not a relevant consideration to evaluate the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. 
Moreover, both authors highlight the importance of the renewable energy industry and field to 
substantiate their conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. But in 
evaluating national importance we are not concerned with the importance of the field; we are 
evaluating the specific proposed endeavor. Simply proposing an endeavor adjacent to an area of 
substantial merit or special concern to the United States does not render such an endeavor nationally 
important as a default. Neither author strays from their descriptions of the importance of the renewable 
energy field to evaluate the Petitioner's specific endeavor and how it can have a prospective positive 
impact from the broader implications of its specific contributions to the renewable energy field. Nor 
does either author sufficiently describe positive economic impacts from the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor. Or in other words, neither author convincingly demonstrates the national impact of the 
Petitioner's endeavor through its broader implications so that a meaningful evaluation of the proposed 
endeavor's potential prospective impact can be made to determine if it rises to a level of national 
importance. And both authors discuss the impact of encouraging business development, finding new 
business opportunities, and providing advising services. But neither author adequately describes how 
the Petitioner's business development initiatives, new business opportunities sourcing, and advisory 
services has broader implications beyond those entities engaging the Petitioner for their services 
which could be examined to determine if they rise to a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner's endeavor also intended to counsel and guide individuals from underrepresented and 
minority backgrounds owning and operating businesses in large, small, and medium enterprises. The 
Petitioner spotlighted I I a "creation" of theirs in the form of an "online platform [for] 
6 
cultivating vital partnerships" which heavily utilized the Petitioner's "technical expertise with strategic 
foresight." The Petitioner asserted that the positive downstream economic effects of their guidance 
and mentorship to entrepreneurs from minority and underrepresented backgrounds owning and 
operating large, medium, and small enterprises would ascend to a level of national importance. But 
the benefit of guidance and mentorship is akin to the benefit of someone's teaching. The benefit is 
generally only directly beneficial to the students being taught and not the wider population. In 
Dhanasar we discussed how teaching would not impact the field of education broadly in a manner 
which rises to national importance. Dhanasar at 893. By extension activities which only benefit a 
small subset of individuals, like the mentorship and guidance component of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, would not rise to a level of national importance. 
And the Petitioner's intention for their endeavor to support "current national priorities for offshore 
drilling" and renewable energy is not by itself sufficient to elevate their endeavor to a level of national 
importance. Not every endeavor that purports to address renewable energy challenges and offshore 
drilling adjacent to U.S government initiatives is nationally important. We said in Dhanasar that we 
focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposed to undertake" and "look for broader 
implications" to determine the proposed endeavor's national importance. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
at 889. The evidence and assertions in the record do not adequately describe how the Petitioner's 
endeavor would broadly implicate matters in the energy sector to a level commensurate with national 
importance. For example, the Petitioner's appeal emphasizes government priorities with offshore 
drilling and the volatility in the availability of oil and gas leases offshore for exploration. And the 
Petitioner describes work that they did with their current employer utilizing GIS that advantaged that 
employer because they were "responsible for identifying and implementing renewable investments" 
for them. But the Petitioner's evidence does not sufficiently describe how the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would address the volatility in the availability of oil and gas leases to a level broadly 
implicating matters of national importance. Or in other words, it is not evident how the Petitioner's 
identification and implementation of renewable investments would broadly implicate the availability 
and cost ofleases for exploration on federally managed lands in a manner that is nationally important. 
And it is not sufficiently apparent from the record how the benefits of the Petitioner's utilization of 
expertise in GIS in the renewable energy sector or oil and gas exploration permeate beyond their 
immediate employer to broadly implicate issues at a level commensurate with matter of national 
importance. 
As we discussed previously, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has shifted and adjusted throughout 
the proceedings below. This impedes our ability to evaluate its national importance. But, even if we 
chose to evaluate the three variations of the Petitioner's endeavor individually, the record does not 
contain relevant, probative, or material evidence establishing the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has 
potential positive impact either through its broader implications to its field or its positive economic 
effects. So we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that their proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
C. Well-Positioned To Advance The Proposed Endeavor 
We disagree with the Director and hereby withdraw the Director's conclusion that the record 
established the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second 
7 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. In evaluating whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor, we review the following and any other relevant factors: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
It is not clear how an individualized consideration of the multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's 
second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the Petitioner is to advance their proposed 
endeavor because the proposed endeavor has been inconsistently expressed. The trio of different 
expressions of the Petitioner's endeavor developed over the course of the proceedings below has 
generated a lack of clarity about what the proposed endeavor is. So we determined that we could not 
evaluate whether the endeavor's potential prospective impact rose to a level of national importance 
either through its broader implications on its field or its positive economic effects. The record contains 
evidence of the petitioner's education, certification, performance of activities like those variously 
described as their endeavor different stages in the proceeding below. But it is not possible to evaluate 
whether the evidence is relevant, probative, or material to the Petitioner's positioning to advance their 
proposed endeavor when the specific endeavor they seek to advance to advance is not readily apparent 
due to the numerous presentations of that endeavor over the course of these proceedings. And the 
letters of support, whilst speaking of the Petitioner very favorably, are not sufficient to demonstrate 
interest or support in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Or in other words, even though some of the 
authors of the letters the Petitioner submitted had worked with the Petitioner or gained a benefit from 
their performance of one the three disparate aspects the Petitioner expressed as their proposed 
endeavor, they did not evidence a persisting interest or support in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
And it remains unclear how the Petitioner would prosecute their proposed endeavor. As we stated 
previously, the Petitioner did not readily identify both in their initial petition and response to the RFE 
how they intended to execute their proposed endeavor. For example, they did not identify a project, 
entrepreneurial endeavor, or employment opportunity that would host the proposed endeavor. On 
appeal, the Petitioner stated they were "currently pursu[ing]" their endeavor as part of their current 
employment withl I But it is not clear from the record if this "current" pursuit is 
the conduit they propose for the continuation of their endeavor such that it is. So we are not able to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner is making progress towards achieving their endeavor if we cannot fully 
comprehend based on the Petitioner's contentions and the evidence in the record how they would 
accomplish the activities of their proposed endeavor. 
As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well 
as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); see also 
the definition of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden 
of proof includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). So the evidence in the 
record does not sufficiently describe how well situated the Petitioner would be to advance their 
petition's proposed endeavor. 
8 
D. Balancing Factors to Determine Benefit to the United States of Granting Waiver of the Job Offer 
Requirement so that the Petitioner can Undertake the Proposed Endeavor. 
If the Director had found that the Petitioner met the eligibility requirements contained in the first and 
second prongs of the Dhanasar framework they would have moved to evaluating whether, on balance, 
the Petitioner had demonstrated that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The Director could have considered the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. 
of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the 
capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers when conducting the balancing of 
the national interests of waiving the requirements of a job offer and therefore a labor certification. 
The record here does not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under the first two prongs of the 
Dhanasar framework. But even if the first two prongs had been met, the petition could not have been 
approved because the record does not satisfy the third prong. The record does not contain sufficient 
evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a 
petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the 
capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers. So it is not evident in the record, 
on balance, that the requirement of a job offer and thus a labor certification, should be waived for the 
Petitioner. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is always the Petitioner's burden to provide competent and credible 
evidence to establish eligibility for the benefit they seek. The Petitioner has not met their burden for 
the reasons set 
forth above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9