dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resource Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 14, 2024 In Re: 29734086 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resource management professional, 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 classification. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, and thus merits a waiver of the job 
offer and labor certification process 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 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. An 
advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act. 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS 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. at 889. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner established her eligibility for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 3 However, the Director 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus a labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor was not sufficiently defined to establish its national importance, under the first Dhanasar 
prong. In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish she is well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor, and 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. For the following reasons, 
upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that there is insufficient evidence 
establish that granting the waiver of the labor certification would be in the United States' national 
interest. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. An endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas, such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining an endeavor's national importance, the relevant question is not 
the 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." Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner describes her proposed endeavor as being "... a certified 
Human Resource Generalist / Professional ... [ with the] intent to bring my knowledge, experience, 
and skills to the USA ifl am given a chance."4 
2 See 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 is discretionaiy 
in nature). 
3 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted an education evaluation from 
International Education Evaluations concluding that the combination of her executive master's in business administration 
in human resources management, and bachelor of science degree in home economics are equivalent to a U.S. bachelor of 
business administration with a concentration in human resource management. She also provided copies of her academic 
certificates and transcripts toward completion of these degrees. In addition, the record contains employment letters 
documenting her progressive experience in the human resources management. Although the letters do not explicitly state 
that she worked fulltime for these employers, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that she was employed for at least 
five years as a human resource manager in positions that were progressively responsible. As such, the record establishes 
that she is an advanced degree professional as defined by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
4 For purposes of brevity, we will not list the outlined "Proposed Roles and Responsibilities[,]" however, we have reviewed 
them, along with all other documents and statements contained in the record, for purposes of this decision. 
2 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) addressing the insufficient evidence to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor, noting that under Dhanasar, "USCIS looks for broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor and that an undertaking must have national importance . . . 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 5 (internal markings 
omitted). In response, the Petitioner submitted a cover letter, recommendation letters, her resume, 
paystubs, certifications, awards, recognitions, "pictorial evidence," and travel history. Her cover letter 
explained her qualifications and career highlights in the field of human resource management. The 
seven recommendation letters generally described how they knew her and for how long and lauded 
her work as a professional with strong capabilities across the field of human resources management. 
Some of the letters also described her "excellent human skills" and recommended her for permanent 
resident status in the United States. The Director concluded that there was substantial merit to the 
field of human resources management, but that neither her personal statement, nor the 
recommendation letters established the broader implications of her proposed endeavor or that her 
endeavor would benefit anyone, beyond herself and her future employer, as required under Dhanasar 's 
first prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes several assertions pertaining to the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor because it would enhance diversity and inclusion, promote social cohesion by 
reducing workplace discrimination, strengthen organizational culture, spur economic growth, 
productivity, and innovation, and contribute to the nation's economic resilience, stability, and growth. 
She also asserts that she will accomplish much of these objectives using her expertise in employee 
recruitment and retention, staff development, and training and development which will lead to "a 
robust and skilled workforce." Further, she asserts that her knowledge of "HR policies development 
and legal compliance" will be in the national interest because it will help organizations navigate 
complex local, state, and federal laws and regulations to "uphold the highest ethical standards, adhere 
to labor laws, and contribute to a fair and just society." Finally, she asserts her endeavor will promote 
"ethical leadership and equitable practices within organizations ... [ and] foster a greater sense of 
corporate social responsibility [which will] contribute to the nation's well-being and sustainability." 
The Petitioner stresses that the provided recommendation letters from experts in the field are proof 
that "people who know [her] trust in [her] and believe in [her] abilities ... ," which she contends 
demonstrates the substantial impact she will have in her field. She explains that if she is not offered 
employment in the United States, she will establish a consultancy, and that this would be beneficial to 
the United States because she will not be competing with U.S. citizens or residents for employment. 
5 We acknowledge the Petitioner's statements referencing the Director's mischaracterizations in their RFE by referring to 
her as an IT business management specialist, her field as electrical engineering, and that the Petitioner's plan is to specialize 
in the realm of process engineering. We also acknowledge the Petitioner's concerns that these errors may have led to the 
denial of her petition. However, upon de novo review, we conclude the Director's typos in the RFE do not wanant a 
remand because the Petitioner's evidence lacks sufficient detail and conoboration to conclude her endeavor is of national 
importance under the standard set forth in Dhanasar. See, e.g., Clifton v. Holder, 598 F.3d 486, 494 (8th Cir. 2010) 
(quoting Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2005)); see also Lee v. Holder, 765 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2014); 
Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (generally standing for the proposition that remands are not needed 
if the issue is not likely to change the result). Moreover, the Director's ultimate decision did not contain the same typos 
or mischaracterizations. 
3 
We agree with the Director's determination that, in so far as the Petitioner's endeavor relates to human 
resources management, it is of substantial merit. However, because the Petitioner's RFE response and 
appeal rely heavily on her academic credentials, professional experience, and achievements to 
establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor, she has provided insufficient evidence to 
establish Dhanasar 's prong one. In general, factors that relate to a petitioner's qualifications, 
experience, or educational credentials relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 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. See id. at 889. 
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 the field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, here, 
the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the 
field of human resource management, as contemplated by Dhanasar. As we stated in Dhanasar, "[a ]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." Id. In this case, absent evidence of the broader implications of her 
endeavor on the field of human resource management, the Petitioner has not established her potential 
employment or ownership of a consultancy would sufficiently impact the field of human resource 
management such that the potential impact of her endeavor is of national importance. 
The Petitioner's statement includes a section titled "Proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance," relating her experience in various professional roles. In it, she describes her 
professional roles as "critical," and specifies the duties she carried out in these roles. She also 
describes her employer as "one of the biggest private organizations in [Pakistan]." While we 
acknowledge this information, as stated above, her professional experience relates to Dhanasar 's 
second prong but does not speak to or establish the national importance of her endeavor. In addition, 
her statement asserts that there is a projected growth of employment for human resources managers as 
new companies and organizations form and expand their operations. While that may be true, as the 
Director pointed out, it is not the importance of the field or profession in which the individual will 
work, instead, the focus of the first prong is the "specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." Id. at 889. Thus, the potential growth of a field or industry or a labor shortage within 
a particular field or industry is not generally relevant to our analysis of whether the endeavor is of 
national importance. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. Here, the Petitioner has 
not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her endeavor will create a sufficiently 
meaningful impact in the economy to conclude her endeavor is of national importance. The Petitioner 
must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. She has not done so, as she has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor 
extends beyond her potential employment or her future clients (in the event her endeavor is a private 
consultancy) to impact the U.S. economy and human resources field more broadly at a level 
4 
commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not demonstrated that 
the work she proposes to undertake offers original innovations that contribute to advancements in her 
industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. Moreover, the Petitioner did not offer a 
sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between her proposed endeavor and the claimed economic and 
societal results she purports will result from her endeavor. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. In 
addition, as the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her eligibility under the second and 
third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting that "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, she has 
not established eligibility for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5