dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 InRe: 30315781 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a change management specialist in the field of human resources, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor is of national importance. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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. 
Once 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, 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: 
• 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. 
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 second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to: their education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; a 
model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the 
interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, establish 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A review of any motion is narrowed to the basis for the prior adverse decision. Accordingly, we will 
examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they pertain to our most recent decision, the 
dismissal of the appeal. As such, our analysis for this motion is limited to the following: whether we erred 
in concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. We incorporate our prior decision by reference and will repeat only certain facts and 
evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner's claims on motion. While we may not address each 
piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 
As indicated above, to have established merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a petitioner 
must both state the reasons why they believe the most recent decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, or binding 
policies that the petitioner believes we misapplied in that prior decision. Thus, to prevail in her motion 
to reconsider, the Petitioner cannot merely disagree with our conclusions but rather must demonstrate 
how we erred as a matter of law or policy in that immediate prior decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 
I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party 
may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
decision). 
On motion, the Petitioner claims that we misapplied "certain legal standards," which resulted in an 
unfavorable decision for her. The Petitioner further contends that national impact was erroneously 
analyzed under the framework of other prongs, which resulted in the finding of the business plan being 
inappropriately undermined. The Petitioner also contends that we unduly focused on economic 
benefits, which is not a requirement for the approval, and ignored major arguments for national 
importance. The Petitioner adds that the future entrepreneurship plan was a small aspect of a much 
broader argument. The Petitioner claims that our ability to disregard analysis of the second and third 
prongs due to the alleged failure of the first prong's argument prevented the matter from being fully 
adjudicated and that each prong must be analyzed under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 
In support of her prior appeal, the Petitioner mainly argued, among other things, that the Director did 
not provide analysis on the most important argument raised by the Petitioner by not considering an 
important piece of evidence, i.e., the business plan of the Petitioner's company called I I 
This business plan was submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), and the Petitioner 
indicated in her business plan that her company would provide change management advisory services 
to small and medium-sized companies in the information technology industry and in the logistics 
industry. The Director characterized the business plan as a subsequent development or event in the 
Petitioner's career, which could not retroactively establish her eligibility at the time of filing her 
petition.2 However, we found that the Petitioner was planning her business endeavor prior to filing 
her petition and that the fact that the date of the business plan post-dates the filing date of her petition 
did not affect her eligibility at the time of filing her petition. Accordingly, we considered the 
Petitioner's business plan as evidence submitted in support of her proposed endeavor and provided in­
depth analysis on the business plan as it pertains to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner now claims that we unduly focused on the economic benefits provided in the business 
plan and ignored her other major arguments for national importance. While we may have not 
addressed each piece of evidence individually in our prior decision, we had reviewed and considered 
each one. In our prior decision, we stated that the articles submitted in response to the RFE and letters 
of supports from the Petitioner's former employers demonstrated the Petitioner's accomplished record 
in her management positions directing various employee relation projects and initiatives. However, 
we noted that in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 
2 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l ), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 T&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971 )(stating that 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing); see also Matter oflzummi, 22 T&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998) 
(holding that a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts). 
3 
industry or professions in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As such, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor to 
establish a consultancy company rises to the level of national importance. We had reviewed each 
evidence on record and considered each argument raised by the Petitioner. We concluded that neither 
the business plan nor the remaining evidence in the record demonstrated that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor rises to the level of national importance for the reasons stated in our prior decision. 
While the Petitioner claims that we misapplied "certain legal standards," the brief in support of the 
current motion lacks any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or policy in dismissing 
the appeal. Nor does she cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, or binding policies to support 
that we misapplied "certain legal standard." Instead, the Petitioner maintains that her petition must be 
approved because she has documented the importance and ingenuity of her idea, because she has 
shown her impressive track record of implementing change management at leading U.S. and 
international companies, because she has hired third-party experts to plan, project, and document the 
viability of her future endeavor, and because she has documented her important present role at her 
current employer. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims on motion, as we stated in our prior 
decision, the Petitioner's job experience and past performance and achievements generally relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. See id. at 890. 
The expert opinion letter from I I an associate professor of marketing at 
states that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in human resources consulting has 
national importance in the field of business because human resource management, which involves 
creating work, assessing human resource concepts, recruiting potential employees, providing job 
training and career advancement, benefits the nation's overall labor market, economy, and business 
industry. Professor! lalso states that human resource management is a very important function 
in every organization. While the expert opinion letter supports the importance of human resources 
consulting, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's consulting activities offer 
benefits that extend beyond her clients to impact the information technology industry or the logistics 
industry more broadly. In Dhanasar, we indicated that we look for broader implications of the 
proposed endeavor and that an undertaking may have national importance, for example, because it has 
national or even globalimplications within a particular field. See id. at 889. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that we erred in our prior decision because we did not provide 
analysis on the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In our prior decision, we declined 
to discuss the remaining arguments regarding the second and third prongs of the Dhansar framework 
because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Because the Petitioner's proposed work did 
not meet the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
Furthermore, we are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to 
the results we reach. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 
I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant 
is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
As stated above, a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may present essentially the 
same arguments and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. See Matter 
of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 5 8. The Petitioner has not shown that our prior decision contains errors of 
law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we determine that the instant motion does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy at the time we issued our prior decision. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew, and the underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5