dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 18, 2024 In Re: 30339776 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a communications specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification (EB-2) 
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 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established 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 pursuant to 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 
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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 I&N Dec. 884 (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: 
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). 
• 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 requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted her personal statement declaring that "I am petitioning 
to work in the United States as a Communications Specialist forl I [ a multinational software 
company]" and her attorney's letter indicating that she will "help with the growth ofl Imarket 
and customer reach within the United States and beyond." The Petitioner's initial description of the 
proposed endeavor does not provide any other details beyond her intention to continue working as a 
communications specialist for her current employer. 2 The Petitioner also submitted industry reports 
and articles discussing the career in public relations and communications in general and 
recommendation letters from her work colleagues atl I all of which did not specifically address 
her endeavor and its broad impact as contemplated by Dhanasar. Hence, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that "the work being done would stand to benefit anyone outside 
ofl Iand its potential clientele" and issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking for additional 
documentation to support that her endeavor has national importance. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a new personal statement reiterating her intent to work 
"in the United States as a Communications Specialist, developing and executing highly specialized 
communication strategies that align with the organization's objectives, thus promoting success and 
growth." The Petitioner also stated thatl Ioffered her a position as a full-time sustainability 
communications specialist and modified the description of her endeavor as follows: 
As a Sustainability Communications Specialist, I will be specifically responsible for 
developing and executing communication strategies that promote sustainable practices 
and environmental responsibility, which is extremely important in today's world. I will 
work closely with stakeholders to promote sustainable practices, share information 
about environmental initiatives, and create a culture of sustainability within the 
organization. 
With the RFE response, the Petitioner provided three expert opinion letters from l 
an assistant professor in the department of journalism and media communication at 
______________ an assistant professor of marketing, organization behavior, 
2 The Petitioner's resume indicates that she worked as a corporate communications intern for Latin America & 
Caribbean division and later joined the Isales team as a marketing and communications content creator 
intern. 
2 
and leadership management atl Iandl Ia business administration 
student mentor at I The Petitioner also included an article entitled, 
"Sustainability Communications in the Era of Green Marketing( a set of presentation slides on 
sustainability communications, and a job offer letter froml _ However, the Director denied the 
petition, concluding that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under the first prong of the Dhanasar' s analytical framework. 3 We agree with the Director's decision. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director "abused its discretion" by "ignoring the objective 
opinion of three independent experts in the Petitioner's field without disqualifying them." However, 
the Director provided a detailed analysis of Professor I I expert opinion letter, how it discussed 
the industry in general rather than the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and how it lacked 
persuasive details in directly tying the Petitioner's endeavor to a broad impact to the field or substantial 
economic effects. The Director made similar conclusions regarding the other expert letters. Although 
the Petitioner contends that these letters "should have played an extremely relevant role in establishing 
the national importance of [the Petitioner's] endeavor, which they all agreed had been established," 
the advisory opinions are of little probative value as they do not meaningfully address the details of 
the proposed endeavor. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the 
Petitioner as advisory but will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other 
information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Matter ofCaron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director "erroneously applied a higher standard of proof to make 
this Decision, having failed to consider the totality of the evidence provided." With respect to the 
standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that she meets each eligibility requirement 
of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. at 375-
76. To determine whether a petitioner has met her 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. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
we find that the Director weighed all the evidence to evaluate whether the Petitioner had demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework but 
determined that the evidence overall lacked probative value. 
The Director also reviewed the job offer letter from I I and the duties of a sustainability 
communications specialist but concluded that "the duties listed appear to be central to the company 
itself, and there is no evidence that the benefits the beneficiary will bring in this company will have 
broad implications extending outside of the company and its clients." Although the Petitioner claimed 
that she will work on a project "dedicated to developing unique and personalized Strategic 
Communications for Plans for American companies," she has not discussed how her project and 
methodologies differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States, 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." Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The record includes a set of presentation slides discussing general action items for increasing external 
3 The Director further concluded that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under the second 
prong, but the evidence does not support that the endeavor, on the balance, would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, under the third prong. 
3 
and internal communications for sustainability, but the Petitioner does provide any context or 
background for this presentation for us to evaluate how her project will have a broad impact in the 
field. Moreover, the three expert letters do not reference this specific presentation or analyze the 
uniqueness of such project. 
The Petitioner further contends that "USCIS appears to have overlooked the extensive probative 
research." The Petitioner submitted various articles and reports on the communications industry and 
the importance of sustainability-focused communications, but in determining national importance, 
the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will 
work. Although the Petitioner claims that her work as a sustainability communications specialist is 
"an issue of national and even global importance," we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." 
Id. These industry reports provide background on the communications career and its importance; 
however, they do not provide any specific information about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and 
are insufficient to establish national importance of the endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's recommendation letters from her work colleagues indicate the high regard 
for her work and skills but do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or its specific impact 
rising to the level of national importance. We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided valuable 
communications services for her employer in the past, but she has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate her endeavor's national importance. 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. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that her work would be on such a large scale that would 
benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner generally claims 
that communication specialists will bring "a ripple effect on broader society and the national economy, 
impacting the United States as a whole" but has not supported her claims with pertinent evidence 
showing that the individual work as a communications specialist at one specific company will generate 
substantial revenue or employment in a particular region or in economically depressed areas, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner does not adequately describe or 
demonstrate how her future work a sustainability communications specialist rises to the level of having 
national importance within the field. The record does not show that the specific work the Petitioner 
proposes to undertake will offer original innovations to advance the industry, or that it otherwise has 
wider implications in the field. The evidence did not sufficiently articulate how her particular 
proposed endeavor would have national importance beyond her current employer and its clients. 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong ofDhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding her 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 
4 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
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, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5