dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Golf Course Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 13, 2023 In Re: 25767325 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, general manager of a private golf course country club, seeks classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-
2) classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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 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 immigrant 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines exceptional ability as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." To demonstrate 
exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of the types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii): 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien 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; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer( s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If the above standards do not readily apply, the regulations permit a petitioner to submit comparable 
evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
And 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 three-prong analytical framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in 
Matter ofDhanasar, 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. 
2 
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. Categorical Ineligibility for EB-2 Classification 
In the first instance, we note the Director's RFE requested the Petitioner provide evidence to 
demonstrate their categorical eligibility for classification as an EB-2 immigrant. The Director's 
decision made no express observations relating to the Petitioner's EB-2 categorical eligibility. We 
conclude the record as it is currently composed does not contain sufficient relevant, material, or 
probative evidence of the Petitioner's advanced degree. So we conclude that the Petitioner is not 
qualified for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. And the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. So we conclude that the Petitioner is categorically 
ineligible for EB-2 immigrant classification. 
1. The Petitioner Has Not Sufficiently Demonstrated Eligibility For EB-2 Classification As An 
Advanced Degree Professional 
The evidence the Petitioner submitted into the 
record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines advanced degree to mean any United States academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate. A United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree and so permit 
classification as an EB-2 permanent immigrant. Progressive experience can be demonstrated by the 
Petitioner by providing letters from current or former employers showing that they have at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.S(g)(l) requires letters from current or former employers include the name, address, and title of 
the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed. 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor of arts degree in media arts from the University ....I ______ _, 
.____________ _.College in 1999. The Educational Database for Global Education 
(EDGE), created by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 
(AACRAO), reflects that bachelor of arts degrees earned at accredited institutions of higher education 
in the United Kingdom ( other than Scotland) are the single source equivalent to a United States 
bachelor's degree. So the Petitioner's British bachelor of arts degree in media arts is a foreign 
3 
equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate degree in media arts from an accredited U.S. institution of 
higher education. 
The petitioner also provided a letter from I Ipresident ofl O ICountry Club purporting 
to document approximately 15 years of work experience. But the letter contained in the record is not 
sufficient to evaluate whether the Petitioner has gained five years, let alone 15 years, of progressively 
responsible post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty. Whilst the letter did contain the 
name, address, and title of the writer, it did not contain a sufficient specific description of the duties 
the Petitioner performed during their post baccalaureate work experience. If we cannot determine 
what work the Petitioner performed and whether it was in the Petitioner's field of specialty, we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional as a non-citizen who has earned a 
single source bachelor's degree in a field of specialty with at least five years progressively responsible 
post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty. So the record does not contain adequate evidence 
to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 classification as a professional with an advanced 
degree. 
2. The Petitioner Is Not An Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Director's decision did not evaluate whether the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility for EB-2 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. But the Petitioner submitted evidence in their 
initial petition for us to consider their eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant classification as a non­
citizen of exceptional ability. Although the evidence in the record reflects that the Petitioner has 
provided an official academic record showing that they have a degree from a university in the United 
Kingdom, the remaining evidence in the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 nonimmigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 1 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
noncitizen has at least ten years offull-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The letter purporting to support the Petitioner's work experience in the specialty is not evidence of at 
least ten years of full-time experience in their occupation because it did not sufficiently demonstrate 
the Petitioner's work experience as discussed by us earlier. The Petitioner's submitted letter did not 
contain a job description. We are unable to evaluate whether the Petitioner has full-time experience 
in the occupation without the specific job description required by 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(l ). So we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner has the requisite 10 years of full-time experience in their occupation. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
The Petitioner contended they have commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which 
demonstrates exceptional ability. But they did not support their assertions with documentation. 2 And 
1 The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession 
or occupation under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(k)(3(ii)(C). 
2 The Petitioner stated the record contained a document they referred to as a "2021 form" to support their asserted salary. 
4 
the record does not reflect the salary or remuneration expected for individuals of exceptional ability 
performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake so that context could be 
applied to evaluate the Petitioner's assertions. There is no evidence in the record which would permit 
us to evaluate the duties a general manager of exceptional ability would perform for the salary and 
their remuneration as a point of comparison. So the Petitioner has not met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) because we cannot evaluate from information in the record whether the 
Petitioner's salary or remuneration demonstrated their exceptional ability. 
Evidence ofmembership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
The Petitioner submitted their listing amongst the directors of I I and receipt of an 
invitation to attend a meeting of the I !chapter of the Club Management Association of 
America as evidence of their membership in professional associations. But the Petitioner identified 
I I as a corporation engaged in the "acquisition and sale of warehouses, equipment, and 
other things related to casters and wheels-parts needed for Gulf (sic) Clubs." Thus, it is not a 
professional association, which is ordinarily an organization or association of professionals in the same 
field. The record does not sufficiently describe the composition of the I Iand whether it 
is composed of professionals akin to the Petitioner. And the meeting invitation did not identify the 
Petitioner's membership status with the Club Management Association of America. It is also unclear 
what membership in the Club Management Association of America would represent within the 
Petitioner's field. Consequently, the record does not convincingly establish the Petitioner's 
membership status in any eligible professional association or organization as that term is contemplated 
in the regulations, and we conclude the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence ofrecognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation prepared contemporaneously with these 
immigrant petition proceedings to demonstrate that they have been recognized for achievements and 
significant contributions to their field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations. But the evidence the Petitioner submitted did not meet the standard of proof because it 
did not satisfy the basic standards of the regulations. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 4 
n.7. The regulation requires evidence of recognition of achievements and significant contributions. 
When read together with the regulatory definition of exceptional ability, the evidence of recognition 
of achievement of significant contributions should show expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
The Petitioner's letters of recommendation are written almost entirely by individual members ofO
I I Country Club. Several were written by the Petitioner's tennis partners and generally contain 
The Petitioner submitted a USIRS Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for 2019 without an accompanying 
USIRS Form W-2, and Tax Statement or USIRS Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income. So it is unclear if this was the 
document the Petitioner referred to. And the sole document in the record from 2021 relating to any financial information 
is a "Income Statement Summary~ 2021" forl !Country Club. This document does not list the Petitioner's salary. 
But, even if the documents the Petitioner submitted had not suffered from these identified infirmities, we would still have 
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner commanded a salary or other remuneration for 
services demonstrating exceptional ability for the reasons contained here. 
5 
vague statements about the writers' impressions of the Petitioner's pos1t1ve work attributes in 
managing! !Country Club and their overall strength of character. The Petitioner asks us to 
conclude the writers' conclusions alone constitute recognition of achievements and significant 
contributions. But these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects 
that these letters represent noteworthy achievements and significant contributions. For example, one 
letter credits the Petitioner with "improving the overall quality and efficiency ofl !Country 
Club." Another letter lauded the Petitioner's "management of a Club that had been struggling for a 
number of years" in a manner "over and beyond the budgetary constraints of new ownership" whilst 
describing the Petitioner as a "friend and acquaintance" of "utmost integrity and diligence." A letter 
written by "a friend (and tennis partner)" describes the Petitioner as a "customer-focused executive 
leader, kind, upstanding and conscientious person." Another letter writer and tennis partner identified 
the Petitioner's tennis game play as a "venue where you can learn a lot about someone's core 
personality" and concluded that the Petitioner had a "kind, clam (sic), and humorous demeanor." One 
letter writer also pointed out the Petitioner's display of "excellent management skills in operating □
I I Country Club." being "very efficient in [their] job" leading to their expectation that the 
Petitioner would "exceed and progress" in their career. In general, the letter writers indicated the 
Petitioner was a person of genial character and a conscientious worker whose work in managing □
I !Country Club was well appreciated. But the competent execution of the Petitioner's job duties 
and their tennis prowess are not achievements or significant contributions to their field of endeavor. 
The writers do not adequately identify any benefits of the Petitioner's endeavor, other than a more 
enjoyable country club experience, that would be worthy of recognition. So we cannot conclude that 
the Petitioner meets this ground of eligibility. 
The Petitioner has established eligibility in only one of the six criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). They cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). So we need not provide a final merits determination to evaluate whether the Petitioner 
has achieved the required level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 
Consequently, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility for permanent 
immigrant classification in the EB-2 category. 
B. Eligibility for Discretionary Waiver of the Job Offer, And So a Labor Certification, in the National 
Interest. 
Ordinarily, only after determining the Petitioner's eligibility under the EB-2 category would the 
Director proceed to determine whether a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a 
labor certification, is warranted. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. But since the Director's decision 
here made specific findings about the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver in their 
decision, we will discuss the Petitioner's ineligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of a labor certification, notwithstanding their categorical ineligibility for the 
EB-2 permanent immigrant classification. 
1. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated general manager as the proposed job title on their Form I-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker. They describe their endeavor as a "business executive/entrepreneur" who 
would "plan, direct or coordinate operations of private sector organizations, overseeing multiple 
6 
departments. Duties include formulating policies, managing daily operations." The conduit for the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor is the continued general management of ~I---~!Country Club, 
which they have purportedly been managing since 2018. 
2. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
a) Substantial Merit 
An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar at 889. The Petitioner described their 
endeavor as a "business executive/entrepreneur." The record before us contains evidence of the 
characterization of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as a "business executive/entrepreneur" which 
falls within the range of areas we concluded could demonstrate endeavor of substantial merit. So the 
record supports the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
b) National Importance 
Alongside demonstrating its substantial merit, a petitioner must also showcase the national importance 
of their proposed endeavor. The Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not 
have the required national importance to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. We agree. 
The Petitioner's endeavor as a business executive/entrepreneur proposed to "plan, direct or coordinate 
operations of private sector organizations, overseeing multiple departments. Duties include 
formulating policies, managing daily operations." The endeavor intends to realize benefits in the form 
of increasing a corporation's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBIDTA), 
direct, and indirect job creation for U.S. workers. 
In support of their claim of eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus 
of a labor certification, under Dhanasar the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters, copies of 
online articles with quotes from the Petitioner, enterprise valuation forl !Country Club, a list 
of the largest corporations in South Korea, the Petitioner's USIRS Form 1040, U.S. Individual Tax 
Return without accompanying USIRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement or USIRS Form 1099-
MISC, Miscellaneous Income, a branch reports-comQany report for I ICountry Club and the 
entities it is affiliated, related, or both to, a printout ofl ICountry Club's website, and articles 
about discrete demographic topics pertaining to Nevada. 3 
The Petitioner essentially argues their endeavor is nationally important because they, based on their 
previous experience and achievements, will undertake and execute it. The Petitioner described their 
endeavor in terms of performing the duties of a general manager competently. The main basis of the 
Petitioner's claim of eligibility for the act of discretion to waive the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus a labor certification, in the national interest comes from the Petitioner's claims regarding their 
past career as a general manager in prominent companies in their home country, their dedication to 
their field, and the competent and successful manner in which they have accomplished their duties in 
the past. But the performance of duties of a general manager on a broad level, even successfully or 
competently, do not implicate matters rising to a level of national importance. These facts are not 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
relevant to the question of whether a proposed endeavor can exert potential positive impact rising to a 
level of national importance. When evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the 
relevant question is not the performance of the proposed endeavor which the individual will operate; 
instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. So we are not concerned with the individual petitioner when 
evaluating the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework; we are focused on the petitioner's 
proposed endeavor. And to demonstrate the national importance of a proposed endeavor under 
Dhanasar 's first prong, we look to its potential prospective impact. In Dhanasar we said that "we 
look for broader implications." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Broader implications are not 
necessarily evaluated from a narrow frame of reference such as geography; implications within a field 
which demonstrate a national or even international influence of broader scale can rise to a level of 
national importance. And substantial positive economic impacts, such as a significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers particularly in an economically depressed area, can also help a proposed 
endeavor rise to a level of national importance. The success of the endeavor, or attributes that could 
tend to make the endeavor more successful, are consequently not as important as determining whether 
the proposed endeavor itself stripped away from a petitioner has attributes that would highlight the 
prospective positive impact of its broader implications or positive economic effects rising to a level of 
national importance. And it is here that the Petitioner's endeavor, such that it is, is deficient. The 
Petitioner's endeavor is at its core the performance of job duties in the operation of businesses, 
currently I ICountry Club. But the record does not adequately support how the performance 
of these duties by the Petitioner would potentially prospectively impact the Petitioner's field in a 
manner that rose to the level of the national interest, either through the proposed endeavor's broader 
implications or its positive economic impact. For example, the Petitioner does not sufficiently link in 
the record how their performance of general management duties at corporations or at I I 
Country Club would increase employment in an area with historic unemployment. It does not identify 
what specific broader considerations would emanate from their specific performance of general 
company management that would implicate the national interest. 
And it is also unclear from the evidence in the record that a single instance of performing the job duties 
of general manager described by the Petitioner would have a significant impact on the field beyond its 
immediate sphere of influence, which at present isl !Country Club. The evidence in the 
record does not highlight how the prospective potential impact of the work of one general manager at 
one country club as is currently the case could have broader implications implicating the national 
interest. Again the Petitioner tries to highlight their endeavor's broader implications by linking the 
endeavor to their experience performing general duties for a company developing software for 
standardized reading tests and for a large multinational conglomerate. Again simple past performance 
of the duties of the endeavor, even successfully or competently, does not confer broad benefits rising 
to a level of national importance because it is not clear from the record how they implicate the greater 
national interest. 4 What can be concluded from the record is that the performance of duties of general 
~er would benefit only the company employing the Petitioner and utilizing their services like0 
L__J Country Club. This is akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only directly 
beneficial to the students being taught and not 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 single employer, likeD 
4 It is important to note that the Petitioner's accomplishments and expertise are more relevant to the second prong of 
Dhanasar, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Dhanasar at 889. 
8 
~-~!Country Club, would not rise to a level of national importance. The record does not contain 
any meaningful analysis of the broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising 
to the level of national importance stemming from the Petitioner's specific performance of the duties 
of a general manager. And the letters of recommendation containing testimonials of the services the 
Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they have received connect to broader 
implications rising to national importance or any nationally important economic impact. In sum the 
record supports the conclusion that the potential impact of the Petitioner's endeavor would benefit 
only companies that employ the Petitioner. 
Moreover, the record does not contain adequate evidence to identify any positive economic impact 
rising to a level of national importance from the Petitioner's endeavor. Whilst the record contains 
evidence of some vague and general financial health, in the form ofl ICountry Club's 
financial statements and the testimony of its members, it is not clear from the record how this economic 
impact would have a substantial prospective positive economic effect commensurate with national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we suggested that a Petitioner may be able to demonstrate the national 
importance of an endeavor by demonstrating "significant potential to employ U.S. workers .. .in an 
economically depressed area ... " See Dhanasar at 890. Here, the evidence in the record does not 
identify any hiring plans or any locality or economically depressed area that could benefit from the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
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); also see 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). The Petitioner has not met their 
burden of proof with persuasive material, relevant, and probative evidence which by a preponderance 
demonstrates the national importance of their proposed endeavor. 
3. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor, the 
resolution of that issue by itself requires dismissal of their appeal. But since the Director's decision 
made specific conclusions about the Petitioner's eligibility under Dhanasar 's second prong, we will 
discuss whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
We conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that they are well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. In evaluating 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, we review (A) a petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; (B) 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; (C) any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and (D) the interest or support garnered by the individual from 
potential customers, users, investor, or other relevant entities or persons. 
As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well 
as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3. The record contains evidence 
of the Petitioner's academic record and employment history. The record does not sufficiently link the 
9 
field of the Petitioner's educational credential, media arts, with the performance of general 
management duties for corporations. And even if they had, we would still conclude that this would 
not demonstrate the Petitioner's positioning to advance their endeavor because simply having 
education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their 
proposed endeavor. This is only one factor amongst many factors which are evaluated together to 
determine how well positioned a petitioner is to advance a proposed endeavor. It is not clear from the 
totality of the evidence in the record 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. 
And the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation 
letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of 
success. Moreover the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, relevant, or 
probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their 
petition. Whilst they speak generally of the Petitioner's realization of certain objectives and skill in 
their field, they do not identify any recognition, achievements, or significant contributions to their 
field that tend to reflect that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance their endeavor. 
So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and probative evidence that they are 
well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
4. 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, 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 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. 
10 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated their categorical eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant 
classification. And the record contains insufficient evidence to establish they met the requisite prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. So we find that they have not established that they are eligible 
for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, with each reason being an 
independent ground requiring dismissal of this appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11