dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 29, 2023 In Re: 28819098 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources consultant, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 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 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that, after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the noncitizen's proposed endeavor has both substantial 
merit and national importance; (2) that 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 that 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. 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of 
a job offer is warranted. 
Initially, the Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to work as a [h]uman [r]esources and [t]alent 
[m]anagement [c]onsultant for her own U.S. company where she will implement her very own 
program ... focused on the management of hotel employees." She also stated that her "endeavor aims 
to serve the U.S. hotel industry, which is one of the industries that has suffered the most due to the 
devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic." She added that her "endeavor will contribute 
towards the recovery of a sector that accounts for $ 7 4 billion of wages and salaries paid to Americans, 
supporting $335 billion in total labor income in the U.S." because "hotel operations and guest spending 
supported 8 million U.S. jobs, including 4.5 million direct jobs." The Petitioner submitted a list of 
exhibits, indicating in relevant part that her initial submission included a business plan. The document 
in the record, corresponding to the exhibit number referenced in the list of exhibits, appears to be a 
PowerPoint presentation written in a language other than English, accompanied by a certified 
translation. The translated document indicates that it is a "training program," not a business plan, and 
it contains pedagogical information, not the type of plans to operate a business that a business plan 
would contain. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted, in relevant part, two 
documents titled "proposed endeavor statement," dated January 2023, and an undated "updated 
personal statement." However, neither document appears reliable or sufficient. Both documents end 
with the Petitioner's typed name, immediately preceded by an image of a signature. However, both 
images of a signature appear to be identical, fuzzy and pixelated, light gray boxes not matching the 
white color of the remainder of the respective pages, and the rectangular boxes appear to crop the 
edges of fuzzy, pixelated images on both the top and bottom margins. Because the purported 
signatures on the documents titled "proposed endeavor statement" and "updated personal statement" 
appear to be fuzzy and pixelated images of signatures that could have been affixed to the documents 
by any person using a word processor, rather than by the Petitioner as the documents indicate, they 
cast substantial doubt that the individual who created the documents is the Petitioner and, thus, that 
the Petitioner expresses the information they contain. That doubt undermines both the reliability and 
sufficiency of those documents and of the record in general. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 
2 
(BIA 1988) ("Doubt cast on any aspect of [a] petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition."); 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) (describing "an acceptable signature" on a physically submitted 
document, in relevant part, as "one that is ... handwritten"). 
Also in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a brief that references the "proposed 
endeavor statement" and "updated personal statement." However, because the documents do not 
appear to be reliable or sufficient, the Petitioner's references to those documents and the information 
they contain bear similarly reduced reliability and sufficiency. 
The Director concluded that "the [P]etitioner's proposed endeavor ... has substantial merit." 
However, the Director found that the Petitioner "has not established that her proposed endeavor has 
implications beyond her current employer (or prospective employer or self-owned company), their 
business partners, alliances, and/or clients/customers and her prospective co-workers/employees or 
workplace at a level sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of her endeavor," as required 
by the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91. The Director farther concluded 
that the record did not satisfy the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the documents titled "proposed endeavor statement" and 
"updated personal statement," submitted in response to the Director's RFE and discussed above, 
demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner also states on appeal 
that "ample evidence was provided with the initial petition to demonstrate that that [sic] the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor was correctly stated and that it is of national importance." The 
Petitioner reiterates on appeal that the proposed endeavor: 
will contribute to the hotel sector, one of which has suffered the most due to COVID-
19 pandemic, industry that is expected to reach pre-covid [sic] levels later than 2023, 
while on the other hand, her endeavor will contribute towards the recovery of a sector 
of $7 4 billion of wages and salaries paid to Americans. 
The Petitioner also references on appeal documents in the record that provide generalized information 
regarding the hotel industry, employment, human resources, and the U.S. economy. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the 
"specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may have national importance, as required by the first 
prong, having "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting 
from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" and endeavors that have broader 
implications, such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. 
We first note that the reliability and sufficiency of the documents titled "proposed endeavor statement" 
and "updated personal statement," submitted in response to the Director's RFE, are undermined for 
the reasons discussed above. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Moreover, the doubt cast by 
3 
those documents undermines the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence in the record. 
See id. 
We next note that, even to the extent that the information in the record may be deemed reliable and 
sufficient, the generalized information in the record that the Petitioner references on appeal are 
immaterial to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. As noted, 
in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, 
or profession in which an individual will work. Instead, to assess national importance, we focus on 
the "specific endeavor that the [noncitizen] proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Because the documents in the record that provide generalized information regarding the hotel 
industry, employment, human resources, and the U.S. economy do not discuss the Petitioner, the 
specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake, and how the proposed endeavor may have national 
importance, they are immaterial to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national 
importance. See id. Relatedly, although the Petitioner asserts that her endeavor will "contribute to" 
the generalized hotel industry, and although she provides general information regarding industrywide 
economic estimates, the record does not quantify the extent to which the proposed endeavor will 
"contribute to" those industrywide economic estimates. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of founding a hotel human resources 
consulting company and providing human resources consulting services to hotels may benefit the 
Petitioner, as the owner and operator of the consulting company; the potential, unidentified clients to 
whom the Petitioner may provide consulting services; and those clients' employees and hotel guests. 
However, the record does not establish that the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. As noted above, 
the document the Petitioner identifies as a "business plan" instead appears to be a PowerPoint 
presentation and the English translation of that document in the record bears pedagogical information, 
not the type of plans to operate a business that a business plan would contain. The record does not 
otherwise contain reliable, sufficient evidence of plans for operating the proposed hotel human 
resources consulting company with information such as the location in which the company would 
operate, the number of employees-if any-the Petitioner's company would hire, the workplace for 
those employees, and the wages the Petitioner's company would pay those employees. Relatedly, the 
record does not contain reliable, sufficient evidence of the locations in which the company's consulting 
clients would operate, the number of employees-if any-the consulting clients would hire as a result 
of the Petitioner's consulting services, the workplaces for those employees, and the wages the 
consulting company's clients would pay those employees. Without more, reliable, sufficient 
information, the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have broader implications, 
such as "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. In tum, although the record 
contains pedagogical information about the Petitioner's training program, it does not establish how 
the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have "national or even global 
implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing 
processes or medical advances." See id. at 889. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
4 
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 the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5