dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 19, 2023 In Re: 28564714 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human talent administrator, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 immigrant 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 Petitioner qualified 
for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but the 
Petitioner had not established 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. 
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. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish 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 I&N Dec. 884 (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 also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner did not provide his job title on the proposed employment section on Form 1-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. Instead, the Petitioner's cover letter dated April 7, 2022, 
describes his proposed endeavor as follows: 
[The Petitioner] will contribute to U.S. companies needing to adapt to the changing demands 
of the U.S. labor market by detecting training needs and designing a specific training plan for 
U.S. companies that incorporates the use of digital tools and is compliant with current labor 
legislation. 
In the personal statement submitted with the initial filing, the Petitioner described himself as a "Human 
Talent Administration Engineer" and explained that his plan "is to start co sulting rd advisory 
services for companies with 5 to 500 employees through an office located in Florida, and1 
then expand to other states such as Texas." The Petitioner farther stated that his services will start 
with "an analysis of compliance with current labor legislation in the United States," then transition to 
building "the Training Plan: it is a management instrument that contributes to the development of the 
strategies for the employer and the employee," and culminate in execution of the training plan. 
Although the Petitioner elaborated that the training plan will develop "labor competencies" or "close 
the gap detected between the responsibilities of the position and those held by the collaborators," he 
did not provide specific contents of his training plan or clearly communicate what he intends to achieve 
for his clients through his services. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a separate statement 
of his proposed endeavor dated September 9, 2022, and an updated personal statement dated 
September 6, 2022. The Petitioner clarified his endeavor as follows: 
My proposed endeavor is to build on my extensive experience with the area of Human 
Resources such as training and coaching processes, salary bands, job analysis, administrative 
process improvement, executive coaching, personnel selection, organizational development 
and new ventures to apply and develop training programs and identification of new jobs post 
Covid-19 pandemic for companies and workers in the USA in order to facilitate the recruitment 
and adaption of workers for existing vacancies in companies and the labor market. 
2 The Petitioner possesses a U.S. e uivalent of a bachelor's degree in talent management engineering and human resources 
from Universidad and a master's degree in business administration and management from 
Universidad in Ecuador. 
2 
The Petitioner also added details regarding the training plan that he proposed for American companies, 
such as the training's objectives, topics (i.e., strategic planning, closing knowledge gaps, 
organizational culture, human relations, etc.), and methodologies (i.e., professional conference, remote 
training, interprofessional knowledge exchange, didactics and practice, etc.). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit but not national importance 
under the first prong of Dhanasar. 3 The Director determined that the record does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's endeavor has broad implications to the field or industry or that it would offer 
substantial economic effects or has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, rising to the level of 
national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director displayed a negative bias towards his case by stating 
that the Petitioner was "evasive in specifying his proposed endeavor." As discussed above, we also 
find that the Petitioner initially offered vague and generic statements about his endeavor and his 
updated statements submitted in response to the RFE provided a more detailed and specific description 
of his endeavor. As the Director subsequently found that the revised statement of the endeavor has 
substantial merit, we determine that the Director's wording simply indicated a lack of clarity in the 
initial description of the endeavor and is neither dismissive nor prejudicial to the outcome of the case. 
The Petitioner also claims that the denial contains instances of "misunderstanding and misapplication 
of law." Specifically, the Petitioner contends: "[ w ]hile the substantial positive economic effects may 
be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the national importance of a proposed 
endeavor, it is NOT required by the precedent case decision or the relevant regulations that one must 
provide a projection of US economic impact to survive a Prong l." The Petitioner also contends that 
the Director's "adamant" emphasis on showing of job creation is "an abuse of the adjudicating 
Officer's discretion." 
In determining national importance under the first prong, we noted in Dhanasar that "we look for 
broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We further stated in Dhanasar 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. Therefore, the Director is bound by the precedent decision to not only look for broader 
implications of the proposed endeavor in a particular field but also evaluate whether the endeavor has 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects. Here, the Director 
considered the appropriate standards laid out by Dhanasar and properly evaluated the endeavor's 
positive economic effects and its potential in creating jobs, in addition to its broad implications in the 
field. 
The Petitioner further claims that the Director's decision was arbitrary and capricious because "no 
piece of evidence was formally or substantially analyzed" and the Director reached conclusions 
"without referring to any of the pieces of evidence that the Petitioner provided in the initial filing as 
well as in the RFE." The Petitioner contends that there was "ample evidence" to support national 
3 The Director also found that the Petitioner did not meet the second or third prong of the Dhanasar's analytical framework. 
3 
importance but the Director "did not contemplate the totality of the evidence submitted." However, 
upon reading the denial, we observe that the Director evaluated and discussed various evidence 
submitted by the Petitioner, including the letters of recommendation, personal statements, the business 
plan, and articles and industry reports on importance of small businesses. Upon de novo review of 
the evidence submitted with the initial filing and in response to RFE, we agree with the Director that 
the totality of evidence do not demonstrate national importance as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
In the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted several reports and articles regarding the value of a small 
business consultant and the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and job creation, as 
well as the White House's fact sheet on promoting competition in the American economy and printouts 
of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) website pages. Although we recognize the value of 
small businesses and their contribution to job growth and economy in general, merely working in an 
important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, 
we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider 
the endeavor's "potential prospective impact." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. However, none 
of the articles or reports provided in the initial filing specifically referenced the Petitioner's endeavor 
and how it will directly impact the field or the U.S. economy. 
The Director issued the RFE after determining that the initial filing lacked "sufficient, independent 
and objective evidence" demonstrating that the Petitioner's endeavor would have significant impact 
to the field or the U.S. economy. Instead of submitting independent and corroborating evidence of the 
specific endeavor's "potential prospective impact," the Petitioner offered clarifying statements about 
his endeavor, two additional recommendation letters from his former co-workers, and a business plan. 
The recommendation letters praise the Petitioner's knowledge in the human resources area and discuss 
particular projects and trainings that the Petitioner successfully handled, but they do not provide details 
regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or how it will specifically impact the field of human 
resources or the U.S. economy. The record also contains a letter from a legal representative of a rubber 
manufacturing company who sought the Petitioner's professional advice and training for human 
resources related issues. The author attests to the Petitioner's knowledge and high-quality services 
and declares that he has made "a significant impact" to the company but does not discuss how such 
impact translates to any broad implications to the field. 
Similarly, the letter from the president of the Association of Professional Engineers Administrators of
I rasserts that the Petitioner is knowledgeable in labor laws of Ecuador 
and had "a significant impact" on the organization. However, the letter does not suggest that the 
Petitioner's methodologies or techniques implemented are widely spread or used in the United States, 
or that it has significant potential to advance the human resources field, as contemplated by 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. at 889. Here, the record is insufficient in that his endeavor's 
specific impact will extend beyond himself and his clients to impact the field nationally. 
4 The author explains that this is an organization of professional administrators who provide advice on administrative 
procedures to public and private companies in the area ofl lin Ecuador. 
4 
Furthermore, the record does not support that his company will have "substantial positive economic 
effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner offered a business plan for 
his consulting company, "Human resources EP Consulting," he has not provided persuasive details 
concerning how he intends to grow his company. The Petitioner's business plan projects that the 
company will have a revenue of $750,000 in the first year "with a growth of 35% after two years," but 
does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections. The Petitioner also provided 
a letter from a company named lin Florida that expressed interest in hiring the 
Petitioner as a consultant for human resources and training. However, this single letter of interest does 
not corroborate the nature or numerosity of clients or clients' projects to support the claims that his 
endeavor will have substantial economic impact. 
We acknowledge that any offer of goods or services has the potential to impact the economy; however, 
the record does not support the Petitioner's company would operate on such a large scale that would 
benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance. In addition, the record does not 
demonstrate that the company will provide substantial impact to any economically depressed areas. 
The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In summation, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor has broad implications 
to the field or that it would offer substantial economic effects. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar 
prong, and is not eligible for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dis positive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding his eligibility 
under the second or third prong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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 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, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5