dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cosmetology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 30629606 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a cosmetologist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual 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. § l l 53(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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 qualification or for a national interest 
waiver. 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 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. 
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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion 3, 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. 4 
II. EB-2 CLASSIFICATION 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the following four of the six categories of evidence 
required to demonstrate exceptional ability: 
• An official academic record showing that the individual has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A); 
• Evidence in the form of letter( s) from current or former employer( s) showing that the 
individual has as least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B); 
• A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C); and 
• Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she had a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field and, therefore, that she did not 
establish that she was an individual of exceptional ability as necessary to qualify for the EB-2 
classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and supporting documentation . The Petitioner states that the 
Director's decision "contains numerous erroneous conclusions of both law and fact," asserting that the 
Petitioner qualifies under the remaining two evidentiary categories of evidence to establish exceptional 
ability and, as a result, has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
field. In her final merits analysis, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
qualifications to work in the field of cosmetology distinguished her from others in the field. Since the 
record does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is eligible for or 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
4 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, we will reserve the issue of the 
Petitioner 's eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 5 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST W AIYER 
The remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the fust prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner initially stated that she intended to operate a chain of hair salons in Florida offering hair 
and nail products and services. She also intended to provide workshops to train "individuals willing 
to start working in the beauty sector, professionals in this sector interested in perfecting their skills, or 
professionals that want to launch their own businesses." The Petitioner further stated that her company 
would "offer business coaching to salon owners, thus helping them improve the performance of their 
businesses, expand, and create more jobs." The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor had substantial merit, she did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor had 
national importance. 
The first prong, 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. In determining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the 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." 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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence establishes the national importance of her 
endeavor, stating the following: 
5 See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision) ; see also Matter ofL-A-C- , 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
(declining to reach alternativ e issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible) . 
3 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor to establish a chain of hair salons and offer 
comprehensive beauty training has the potential to bring about national implications 
within the beauty industry. Her qualifications and professional history highlight her 
exceptional expertise and dedication to the field, making her a formidable force in 
driving positive change and elevating industry standards. 
By encouraging business growth and removing barriers to legal immigration, her 
consulting services can foster a more inclusive, diverse, and innovative environment in 
the regions she operates in. This approach can lead to the development of new ideas, 
products, and services, driving overall economic growth and prosperity. 
Another one of the economic impacts of [the Petitioner's] endeavor lies in its job 
creation potential. As she expands her chain of salons and education centers across the 
nation, there will be an increased demand for skilled professionals in the cosmetology 
industry. Hairstylists, makeup artists, beauty educators, and salon staff will be 
employed, reducing unemployment rates and improving the standard of living for 
numerous individuals and their families. The growth in employment opportunities will 
not only positively impact local economies but also stimulate consumer spending, 
leading to broader economic prosperity. 
As her chain of salons and education centers expands, the positive economic effects 
will cascade through the entire supply chain. The increased demand for beauty 
products and services will benefit suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors, further 
boosting economic activity and creating additional opportunities. 
The Petitioner's business plan includes the following: 
Through her proposed endeavor, [the Petitioner] will contribute to the mix of the 
competition in the hair salon market in Florida, support the development of e­
commerce sales of beauty products, and contribute to the continuous education of 
beauty professionals. Additionally, through [her company's] activities, [the Petitioner] 
will support other beauty salon owners in successfully managing an expanding their 
businesses, ultimately contributing to the development of the overall economy. 
These assertions of the Petitioner, as well as others in her business plan and elsewhere on the record, 
largely discuss the anticipated potential of her company based on her experience, hair and nail salon 
industry forecasts, and consumer data within the industry. However, these assertions are not supported 
by objective evidence to demonstrate how her company, one of many operating in the industry, would 
have a prospective national impact on the field or on an economy of any scale. For example, the 
business plan anticipates hiring 20 individuals, generating $825,795 in payroll expenses, $123,869 in 
payroll taxes, and a net profit of $73,937, by the conclusion of its fifth year of operation. The plan 
does not, however, provide an objective basis for these projections, nor are the numbers corroborated 
4 
by probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it is likely the company will have a positive 
national economic impact or a national prospective impact within the field. A petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
The business plan also includes a Regional Input-Output Modeling Systems (RIMS II) analysis to 
demonstrate the company's potential impact on the region in which it intended to operate. It states 
that the multipliers for the category of Personal Care Services Industry in Florida project "a final­
demand impact in employment, equivalent to 702.918 jobs in Year 5" and revenues of $1,810,378. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that RIMS Tl's broad category of "Personal Care 
Services in Florida" properly captures the potential impact of her proposed endeavor, which involves 
providing hair and nail products and services and workshops for individuals intending to enter the 
field. She has therefore not shown that these general statistics on a broad category of economic 
activities substantiate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. Moreover, the RIMS II 
modeling tool relies on various assumptions, including those made by the Petitioner, leaving the 
prospective impact of her proposed company uncertain. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor based on its potential job creation or 
impact on the U.S. economy. 
The Petitioner initially provided industry reports and articles discussing immigration, 
entrepreneurship, the beauty industry, and the presidential administration's small business initiatives. 
While this material discusses certain topics related to the economy, it does not provide insight into the 
Petitioner's plan to operate a chain of salons or show how her specific endeavor would have a potential 
prospective national impact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references letters of recommendation and other material as evidence of her 
skills and experience. We note that evidence of an individual's abilities and history within a field 
generally relate not to the national importance of an endeavor, as discussed in the first prong of Matter 
of Dhanasar, but to the second,6 discussing whether an individual is well positioned to advance an 
endeavor. As such, the letters of recommendation do not sufficiently demonstrate the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the nation. Specifically, she 
has not shown that her business stands to provide substantial economic benefits to any particular 
locality or to the United States overall. While the business plan and statements explain in general 
terms that her company would benefit the U.S. economy because it would help create jobs, that 
reasoning is not based on any objective evidence related to her specific proposed endeavor to operate 
a chain of salons offering educational workshops. As such, the business plan does not demonstrate 
that the prospective benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
endeavor would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. 
6 Because the Petitioner has not established eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, determinations 
concerning the second and third prongs are unnecessary to the ultimate decision; therefore, they will be reserved in this 
decision. 
5 
In addition, although the Petitioner claims that her company will positively benefit a low-income area, 
it is not clear how a business of the size and scope described in the business plan would positively 
impact a given region where her employees or clients are located. The Petitioner has not provided 
evidence to show that she would create jobs for a significant population of workers in a particular 
region, nor has she shown that her proposed endeavor would offer a region or its population substantial 
economic benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor "holds immense potential to broadly 
enhance societal welfare," stating the following: 
By actively recruiting hairstylists and makeup artists from different ethnicities and 
cultural backgrounds, she aims to create a more diverse and representative workforce. 
This approach leads to a broader range of beauty services that cater to diverse needs 
and preferences, thereby contributing to a thriving and dynamic beauty industry that 
reflects the rich diversity of her nation. 
Although the Petitioner's hiring choices would affect the diversity of the workforce within her salons, 
she does not explain how this would contribute to the industry in a manner that would have a national 
impact. The Petitioner asserts that her "endeavor contributes directly to the nation's goals of 
promoting economic development, job creation, and skills training." She also states, "By offering 
education and coaching services to salon owners, she empowers small businesses in the cosmetology 
sector, which is essential for growth and sustainability in the industry." However, while her services 
may benefit individual clients, the Petitioner does not explain how training offered by a salon chain 
would benefit the beauty industry on a national scale. 
The Petitioner further points to a purported talent shortage in the field of cosmetology and claims that 
training courses offered by her salons would address the issue, stating that they will "empower recently 
graduates cosmetology students, primarily women, with the confidence and updated skills necessary 
to enter the job market or start their businesses." Likewise, she indicated that she would "train and 
uplift a large number of individuals, thereby contributing to a boost in the American beauty industry 
and workforce." The Petitioner, however, does not support these claims with sufficient evidence to 
establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce this purported national 
shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. 
The record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate 
decision); 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). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, she has not 
established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7