dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 26, 2024 In Re: 32486628 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. § 1 l 53(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. 
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. 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 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 also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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 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. 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated that she intended "to assist U.S. organizations 
to design, develop, and implement the integral systems and procedures needed to protect American 
workers from illness and injury, protect the environment from damage and impacts, as well as avoid 
property damage." She explained that she planned to continue "working as an Environmental Manager 
and offering my expertise to U.S.-based companies to help improve their management systems and/or 
operations. More specifically, I can provide my expertise in energy consumption, natural resources, waste 
disposal, and environmental management .... " In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner indicated that her company,! I"will act in the field 
of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Due Diligence, evaluating and mitigating potential 
environmental liabilities and health and safety risks . . . . The core services offered by 
___________ encompass a comprehensive suite ofEHS consultancy categories." 
In addition to company formation documents for _____________ the Petitioner 
submitted its business plan. 2 This business plan includes industry and market analyses, information 
about her company and its services, financial forecasts and projections, marketing strategies, a 
discussion of the Petitioner's education and work experience, and a description of company personnel. 
Regarding future staffing, the Petitioner's business plan anticipates that her company will hire 9 
personnel in year one, 11 in year two, 10 in year three, 11 in year four, and 10 in year five ( 51 employees 
total), but she did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these 
additional employees. Furthermore, while her plan offers revenue projections of $828,397 in year 
one, $1,585,920 in year two, $2,482,672 in year three, $3,316,530 in year four, and $4,294,237 in year 
five, these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they 
will be achieved. 
2 As the Petitioner's formation of ________________ 2023) materialized after the filing 
of the petition, and therefore would not establish her eligibility at the time of filing, it does not assist her in establishing 
that she meets the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar framework. The petition in this matter was filed on May 11, 
2023, and the Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing. See 
8 C.F.R. § I03.2(6)(1 ), (12); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 T&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress 
did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently 
approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of facts"). Further, a petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See 
Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
2 
The record includes information about compliance managers, environmental managers, the role of the 
environmental manager in advancing environmental sustainability, the value of environmental 
management, worker shortages in environmental management, and U.S. environmental policies. She 
also submitted articles discussing environmental challenges facing our nation, the state of the 
environment and natural resources in the United States, the economic benefits of immigrant 
entrepreneurs, immigrants as job creators, and the role immigrants play in the U.S. economy. We 
agree with the Petitioner that the submitted documentation establishes her endeavor has substantial 
merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the overall 
importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of immigrant 
entrepreneurship; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from C-W-, G-D-C-M-, J-E-S-, C-E-O-, L-H-, J-H-, J­
M-B-, T-F-, C-L-, E-S-, F-G-, S-E-M-, I-K-C-, P-V-F-, K-U-, and B-K- discussing her environmental 
management capabilities and experience. The Petitioner's education, skills, knowledge, and prior 
work in her field, however, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first 
prong. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted an "Expert Opinion Letter" from Dr. A-A-, Adjunct Professor 
of Mathematics at in support of her national interest waiver. Dr. 
A-A- contended that the Petitioner's proposed work is of national importance because her generic 
occupation of environmental manager and the occupational health industry stand to contribute to our 
nation's economy and U.S. public health and safety. The issue here, however, is not the national 
importance of the field, 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. The letter from Dr. A-A- does not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor 
does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's specific 
proposed work offers broader implications in her industry, U.S. public health advancements, or 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her undertaking "would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either 
regionally or nationally." In addition, the Director indicated that the Petitioner had not shown that her 
proposed work stands "to substantially affect economic activity or tax revenue in a state, region, or 
nationally." 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that there is an "impending shortage of environmental 
professionals" and that she "will be addressing an industry shortage, which U.S. workers cannot address 
as demand exceeds supply." We are not persuaded by the argument that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of workers in her field. Here, the Petitioner has 
not established that her proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce the claimed 
3 
national shortage. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
The Petitioner further states that her proposed endeavor "aligns with pressing federal initiatives aimed 
at environmental protection and sustainability ." She claims that her proposed work "is essential to 
advancing U.S. leadership in environmental sustainability and compliance." The Petitioner also 
contends that her undertaking "support[ s] the broader goal of promoting sustainable business 
practices" and affects "local communities, the entire nation, and even global environmental standards." 
In addition, she argues that her "endeavor supports the national interest by contributing to economic 
growth, public health, and environmental sustainability." 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would 
operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her industry or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. 
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. While the 
Petitioner 's statements reflect her intention to provide environmental management services to h er 
company's clients, she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, 
we detennined 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. Here, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company 
and its future clientele to impact her industry, the environmental management field, U.S. public health, 
our country's economy, or U.S. societal welfare more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or any other region of the 
United States. While the Petitioner claims that her company has growth potential, she has not presented 
evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from her undertaking 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
4 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor offers benefits for the domestic job market, 
she has not offered sufficient evidence that her endeavor offers Florida, any other parts of the United 
States, or our nation a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue , or 
business activity . 
For the aforementioned reasons , the Petitioner 's proposed work does not meet the fust prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner 's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 ofL-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 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 reasons , with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5