dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APRIL 9, 2024 In Re: 29686164 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources specialist, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she 
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. 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and 
thus the labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if the petitioner demonstrates 
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 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. 
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 petitioner to obtain a labor certification; 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 petitioner 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 
The Petitioner proposes to work in the United States as a human resources specialist through her own 
consulting company. The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 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. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
1 See also 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 to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting, among other things, further evidence of 
how the proposed endeavor would be of national importance. In response, the Petitioner provided 
additional documents including a business plan, resume, and industry reports and articles. In denying 
the petition, the Director concluded that although Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her endeavor. The Director also determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has broader implications, has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers, and that it would broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or 
artistic enrichment. Furthermore, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence to confirm whether her proposed endeavor will have substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously denied the petition and misapplied 
the law. The Petitioner further argues that the Director did not apply the proper standard of proof and 
instead imposed a stricter standard. The Petitioner also claims that the Director did not give "due 
regard" to her submission of evidence. She highlights the evidence submitted in support of the petition 
and in response to the RFE to underscore the sufficiency of the submitted evidence and contends that 
she submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
As previously noted, the first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor 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 record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate a human resources consulting 
company in Florida. She aims to recruit, interview, hire, and train staff and personnel, in addition to 
assisting small and medium-sized companies with their human resources requirements. The Petitioner 
claims her proposed endeavor will provide benefits that extend beyond her own company because she 
specializes in a niche field where few possess the required knowledge and expertise. The Petitioner 
further asserts that she will be able to impact all businesses in the United States by providing services 
that are essential to every business. 
The Petitioner maintains that her proposed endeavor is of national importance because it will generate 
"substantial ripple effects" on key commercial and business activities and will serve the business 
development and functions of U.S. companies. The Petitioner submits recommendation letters that 
discuss her experience in human resources, including assisting operational employees, her background 
as a business psychologist, and her involvement in the planning, selection, and monitoring of workers. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter expressing interest in hiring her company to offer behavioral 
trammg. In her statement, the Petitioner emphasizes her experience in the human resources 
management and claims that she will increase employment opportunities and salaries by leveraging 
her expertise. 
Although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, 
they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's claimed extensive 
experiences as a human resources specialist are material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an 
individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first 
3 
Dhanasar prong-whether a specific, prospective, proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance. See id. at 888-91. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting her work's "potential prospective impact." While the Petitioner 
claims that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, she has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact 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. Here, the record does not include adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the 
Petitioner's specific proposed work as a human resources specialist operating her consulting business 
offers broader implications in her field, enhancements to U.S. societal welfare, or substantial positive 
economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance. 
Though we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the evidence she submitted in support of her 
petition, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently 
extend its benefits beyond her immediate customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale 
indicative of national importance. 
The first prong focuses on the proposed endeavor itself, not the petitioner. Id. The Petitioner must 
establish that her specific endeavor has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates that her company will hire nine employees by the first year 
and 101 employees by the end of year five. Furthermore, the Petitioner's plan offers total revenue 
projections of $402,000 in year one to $1,680,000 in year five. The Petitioner has not however 
presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from her 
undertaking would reach the level of"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. at 890. Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels 
and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. 
While the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor of helping small and medium-sized companies 
manage their human resources needs would grow the overall economy, she has not demonstrated that 
her undertaking has implications beyond her company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a 
broader scale indicative of national importance. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding 
any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does 
not indicate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
The Petitioner refers to industry reports and articles to highlight the crucial role that business 
development professionals play in every business and emphasize the importance of her proposed 
endeavor. She argues the articles demonstrate the national importance of her proposed endeavor, thus 
impacting "nation-wide activities and business productivity." The record nonetheless does not 
establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the 
Petitioner's customers and businesses she elects to work with. As previously mentioned, in 
4 
determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained 
how she will positively impact the U.S. economy and create direct and indirect jobs to move the U.S. 
economy on a broad scale rising to the level of national importance. Without evidence projecting U.S. 
economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, it is insufficient to 
assert that the benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the proposed endeavor 
would rise to the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without 
providing evidence to corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner 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 
her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. 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 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 Dhanasar analytical framework's requisite first prong, we conclude 
that she has not established 
that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5