dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hospitality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 17, 2024 In Re: 34408425 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general manager in the hospitality field, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability, and that he is eligible 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(K)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
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. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If 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 the requisite degree of expertise and will substantially benefit 
the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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 (USCTS) may, as matter of discretion, 2 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the record did not establish that the Petitioner is an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability. Additionally, the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not establish he met the national interest waiver requirements. Specifically, while the Director 
determined that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director did not find that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, 
and waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
We find that the record does not establish that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of 
a labor certification, would be in the national interest. As such, we reserve our opinion regarding 
whether the Petitioner satisfies second-preference eligibility criteria as an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that 
are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework requires the Petitioner to establish the proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. We agree with the Director that the 
record establishes the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. For the reasons discussed 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of 
his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
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 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of 
Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
With respect to his proposed endeavor, the Petitioner stated on his petition that he would "plan, direct, or 
coordinate the operations of tourism and hospitality organizations, overseeing multiple departments or 
locations. Duties and responsibilities include formulating policies, managing daily operations, and 
planning the use of materials and human resources." He further mentioned he would "manage projects 
for the greater good of the tourism industry" and "contribute to the U.S. government by collecting taxes 
and providing jobs for Americans indirectly through [his] expertise in managing hospitality positions." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner further stated his proposed endeavor focuses 
on "the development of new talents, such as the inclusion of apprentices ( age[ s] between 14 and 18), 
people with disabilities, and the elderly in the hotel industry." 
The record includes, but is not limited to, statements from the Petitioner, immigration records, a 
professional plan, industry reports, professional and educational records, work experience and 
recommendation letters, and financial records. 
In finding that the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor under 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Director mentioned that the evidence 
submitted relates to the Petitioner's employment history and progression of his career. The Director then 
found that no evidence was submitted to show the broader implications of the proposed endeavor, and no 
evidence was submitted to show how the proposed endeavor would generate new income, have the 
potential to employ U.S. workers, or have any other positive economic effects. The Director mentioned 
that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond an 
organization and its clients to impact the industry or field more broadly. The Director noted the 
Petitioner's statement regarding diversification and professional development in the hospitality industry, 
that he seeks to work as a general manager, and "[i]t does not matter if I start again in the USA at the 
hotel reception desk." The Director found the Petitioner failed to explain, in light of his willingness to 
work as a receptionist, how he would promote inclusion by hiring a diverse team of individuals, strengthen 
the workforce, and provide jobs for U.S. citizens. The Director referenced statistics about revenue and 
employment from the hotel industry, and then noted the absence of evidence that the Petitioner's 
management and hospitality skills correlate to hotel chain investing, patron reservations, or guest 
spending. Based on the above analysis, the Director determined that the proposed endeavor lacks national 
importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that proposed endeavor has national importance because the 
hospitality industry is a vital component of the U.S. economy, and its growth and success have the 
potential to impact the nation in various ways. Specially, the Petitioner mentions that the hospitality 
industry creates jobs; is a significant contributor to the gross domestic product; has a strong impact on 
international tourism; and promotes local and national culture and history through food, entertainment, 
and other offerings. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national 
importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national 
importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications within a 
particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area." Id. at 889-90. 
3 
Next, the Petitioner makes the same and similar arguments that he made in response to the RFE. 
Specifically, he emphasizes that the proposed endeavor will promote diversity and inclusion, corporate 
responsibility, and strengthening of the employer brand. He states that he will cultivate the potential 
of each team member through training programs, mentoring, and skills development; and he will 
implement policies promoting the inclusion of underprivileged individuals and the disabled. The 
Petitioner therefore asserts that the proposed endeavor benefits societal welfare, has substantial 
positive economic effects, and has broader implications in the U.S. hospitality industry. The Petitioner 
states that his professional plan establishes these three benefits as well. The Petitioner repeats prior 
arguments that his proposed endeavor will result in employment opportunities, skill development, 
diversity and inclusion, community impact, enhanced corporate image, reduction of welfare 
dependence, stimulus to consumption, and attraction of investment and tourism. The Petitioner refers 
to a previously submitted article about the importance of an economy that is socially inclusive. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect his intention to provide general manager services in the hospitality 
industry, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective 
impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 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. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claims 
that the individuals he would manage would be of a diverse background, he would benefit them 
through training and mentoring, and he would implement inclusive policies at his future place of 
employment. Although the Petitioner asserts that his proposed endeavor stands to generate jobs for a 
diverse group of U.S. workers, the record does not include sufficient evidence establishing that the 
specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or that 
benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his undertaking would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. It is insufficient to claim 
an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor 
stands to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer and its clientele to impact his fields, the 
general manager and hospitality industries, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. Therefore, he 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 his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. See Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. at 25. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4