dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 18, 2024 In Re: 30336052 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a Human Resources professional and Entrepreneur, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer and labor certification 
requirements for EB-2 classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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. 
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. 
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. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&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 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a citizen and national of Brazil currently residing in the United States, seeks a waiver 
off the job offer and labor certification requirements of EB-2 classification based on her proposed 
endeavor of starting a human resources (HR) consulting agency. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner qualified as a professional with an advanced degree, so the sole issue on appeal is whether 
the Petitioner has established eligibility for a waiver in the exercise of discretion. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner proposes to create I I a human resources consultancy organization, in 
___ The business plan provided to the director indicates she intends to leverage her 
experience as a human resources professional to create her own company providing consulting 
services to organizations and individuals. Specifically, she states: 
The company will primarily be a Human Resources consulting company. The company 
will cater to small and medium-sized companies in the U.S. It will specialize in 
providing advisory and implementation activities related to the management of an 
organization's human capital and the HR function. The services range from Human 
Capital strategy, Compensation & benefits, Organizational change, HR Function, 
Talent Management, HR Analytics, Learning & Development and HR Technology. 
The business plan goes on to state that it will have a business to business model and be headquartered 
inl Pennsylvania, a qualified HUBZone, and open two additional offices in I I 
New Jersey and I I Maryland within 5 years of operation. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided the Director with a business plan, brief, resume, news articles related to human 
resources, letters of support, and expert opinion letters. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not established her eligibility under any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework and issued 
a request for evidence (RFE). In response to the RFE the petitioner provided a new brief: additional 
letters of support, evidence of the Petitioner's membership and awards, and additional industry 
2 
information. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established any of the three prongs 
of the Dhanasar framework and denied the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof ..., 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law .... " ( emphasis omitted). The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume outlining her experience; the business plan describing her 
credentials and the projected benefits she offers the United States; letters of recommendation; and 
industry reports and articles showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the 
shortage of professionals in her field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter ofChawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner stresses on appeal her nine years of professional experience to argue that "a professional 
of (my) caliber can contribute to the U.S. economy, regardless of labor certification." The Petitioner 
provided an expert opinion letter from V-L-, a I lorofessor, titled "analysis 
of positional requirements for National Interest Waiver." The letter highlights the petitioner's 
qualifications and reiterates the claims made in her business plan. The letter makes general assertions 
regarding the Petitioner's endeavor to improve the operations of small to medium sized enterprises 
without identifying a specific enterprise or how the petitioner's products will improve existing HR 
resources for a specific organization. The letter asserts that the Petitioner's past experience and 
professional accomplishments would make her invaluable to any organization. However, the 
Petitioner's reliance on her professional experience and professional achievements to establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her professional experience relates to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the 
foreign national." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 3 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. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that she will create value for U.S. organizations through "improved 
performance, achieved by providing objective advice regarding the optimization of business processes 
using respected industry methodologies" and "implementing effective HR development and strategic 
planning." The record includes the Petitioner's statement and a business plan which argue that her 
proposed endeavor has national importance based on potential economic benefits to underutilized 
business areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and to the United States. The Petitioner states 
her business would generate jobs for U.S. workers in these underutilized areas, improve wages and 
working conditions for U.S. workers, help the local community attract investments to the region, and 
encourage economic development. The Petitioner asserts that her entrepreneurial endeavor is 
particularly important given the role of small businesses in the U.S. recovery from the COVID-19 
pandemic. The business plan also explains the Petitioner's experience and investment in the business; 
3 
its intended location and expansion plans; market overview of the human resources industry; benefits 
of the human resources industry for U.S. businesses; the business' services of retention planning and 
management consultancy, recruitment, and career advice and engagement monitoring; and the 
business' projected marketing strategy, staffing, and financial calculations. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, she has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate 
them. She has not identified any specific human resources consulting engagements for which she 
plans to offer services nor has she offered evidence of a direct connection between her human 
resources consulting services and a boost in her client's product or services sales. As such, she has not 
demonstrated that any of those potential sales are of such a magnitude as to affect a particular industry, 
jobs, or the U.S. economy. Further, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from her human resources consulting work would result in substantial 
positive effects. 
The Petitioner's financial and staffing projections in the business plan and other supporting 
documentation are contradictory. In her initial business plan, the Petitioner indicated she would create 
16 full-time positions, 74 part-time positions and 14 contractor positions within the first five years of 
operation. However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner's brief indicated she would create "13 
direct jobs" without regard to whether they were full-time, part-time or contracted. There was no 
explanation for the change in the number of jobs created or the potential impacts to the salary and 
revenue projections offered in the initial business plan. The Petitioner makes no reference to the 
number of jobs created or revenue generated on appeal but refers more broadly to the economic 
impacts of HR consulting. 
As stated above, the Petitioner's initial business plan clearly identified her proposed endeavor as a 
business to business operation. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that her "proposed endeavor explicitly 
states its intention to promote economic development by serving both businesses and individuals 
throughout the country." There was no expansion on the services the Petitioner proposed to provide 
to individuals in the appeal brief. Lastly, the Petitioner has held throughout her briefs and other 
documents that she would be the primary shareholder and owner of the company, yet, her business 
plan indicates that her spouse would own 90% of the shares of the company while she would own 
10%. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the Petitioner's assertions regarding the economic effects 
of her business and her position within it. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor, including the asserted economic benefits to the United States and the areas it intends to 
serve. The Petitioner has documented the growth of the human resources industry as a whole and 
provided articles and industry reports to support her assertions. However, the growth and importance 
of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar 
framework. 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. 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, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially 
benefit the field of human resources, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
4 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." 
Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's human resources consulting business would 
impact the field more broadly. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her business' 
activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underutilized business communities or the 
United States. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the 
potential to provide economic benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, 
without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as the owner of her human 
resources consulting business would impact the human resources field more broadly, rather than 
benefiting her business and her clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
In summary, the Petitioner has not specifically addressed the concerns of the Director, namely, that 
the business plan, revenue projections, and staffing models be supported by objective evidence. Based 
on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her 
business and her future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not 
demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as the owner of her proposed human resources 
consulting business offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or 
otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims 
depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie 
between her proposed human resources consulting work and the claimed potential economic benefits. 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
Because the Petitioner does not establish 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and 
appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework. 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 of 
L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5