dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Executive Assistance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 18, 2024 In Re: 28840762 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an executive assistant, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
established she was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated 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 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. 
The Petitioner intends to work as an executive assistant for senior partners and chief executive officers 
at I I and with the goal of developing further into an event management role. 
The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief that reiterates the same 
evidence already on record and does not specifically address the Director's grounds for denial. In 
addition, the appeal brief does not claim any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The 
Petitioner did not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's 
determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's substantial merit and national importance claims under the first prong of 
Dhanasar, including her submission of a business plan, an expert opinion letter, and the claimed 
proposed endeavor. 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's explanation of the proposed endeavor in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) significantly departed from the proposed endeavor she indicated 
in her initial filing. 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). The 
Petitioner's transfiguration of their proposed endeavor from the initial petition to the response to the 
RFE introduced significant ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its 
substantial merit or national importance. 
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must 
identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when 
a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor. Further, on appeal, the Petitioner 
did not provide any evidence to overcome the Director's issues and concerns. 
Because the Petitioner did 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, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of her eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
2 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 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2