dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2023 In Re: 28963191 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources manager, seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability 
in the sciences, arts or business. 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 an individual of exceptional ability 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 Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 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. 
The Petitioner described the endeavor as a plan "to work as a [h]uman [r]esources [c]onsultant in the 
U.S. with a special focus and emphasis on the areas of strategic HR planning, internal consulting, labor 
and union relations, personnel administration, training and organizational development." The 
Petitioner also asserted that she "intend[s] to set up a consulting company and generate jobs and 
contribute to the nation's growth." However, the Petitioner did not elaborate on the location in which 
her consulting company would operate, the number of employees she intended to hire to work for her 
company, the wages she would pay those workers, and other details regarding her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner further stated that she would "share her vast knowledge and influence through events, 
trainings and impact on young people and adults who may be dedicated to the same or associated 
professional crafts across the U.S." The Petitioner also referenced generalized information regarding 
human resources consulting. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided generalized information regarding human 
resources consulting and her qualifications. However, the Director observed that "the [P]etitioner has 
not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects." The Director also 
noted that the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have "broader implications, or 
national or global implications within a particular field," referencing Dhanasar. See id. at 889-90. 
The Director concluded that "the [P]etitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor is of 
national importance." The Director further stated that "the record established that the [P]etitioner met 
the second [ Dhanasar] prong" but neither of the first and third prongs, without specifically addressing 
whether the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, which is also required by the first Dhanasar 
prong. See id. at 889-91. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "ample evidence was provided with the initial petition and 
[request for evidence (RFE) response] to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor was 
correctly stated and that it has national importance." The Petitioner also reiterates information from 
various publications in the record regarding human resources consulting in general. The Petitioner 
characterizes the Director's RFE as "acknowledging that the Petitioner submitted various articles to 
2 
show national importance, but then asks for documentary evidence that establishes the endeavor's 
national importance, thus implying that the various articles acknowledged by the [RFE] itself did not 
show the merit of the endeavor." 
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 Matter of 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. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the Director's RFE did not "acknowledg[e] that the 
Petitioner submitted various articles to show national importance." Instead, the Director's RFE 
acknowledged that the Petitioner "submitted [i]ndustry reports and articles to establish the growth and 
need for HR consultants." The Director noted that "[t]he evidence submitted may show that there is 
a need in the United States for More HR consultants; however, there is a labor certification process in 
place to address shortages in fields." The Director explained that "[s]imply working in a field where 
there is a shortage falls short of showing that the [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has a prospective 
national impact." Accordingly, the Director requested, in relevant part, "[d]ocumentary evidence that 
supports the [P]etitioner's statements and establishes the endeavor's national importance," given that 
the evidence initially submitted in support of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
did not satisfy that requirement. 
As noted above, 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 id. at 889. The 
various publications in the record regarding human resources consulting in general do not discuss the 
Petitioner, the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, and how the specific 
endeavor may have "national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or 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. Because the various 
publications in the record regarding human resources consulting in general do not address the 
Petitioner, her specific proposed endeavor, and how the endeavor may have national importance, they 
are immaterial to determining whether the proposed endeavor may have national importance. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor of founding and operating a human resources consulting company 
appears to benefit the Petitioner, as the owner and operator of the consulting company, and the 
potential clients who would request and receive her consulting services. However, the record does not 
establish how the proposed endeavor may have national importance. Although the Petitioner asserts 
that her consulting company would "generate jobs," the record does not establish where the 
Petitioner's consulting company would operate, the number of workers her company would employ, 
the wages she would pay her employees, and other information that may establish how the proposed 
endeavor may have "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive 
3 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area." Id. Likewise, the record does not 
establish where the Petitioner's company's clients would operate, the number of workers those clients 
would employ as a result of the Petitioner's company's human resources consulting services, the 
wages the Petitioner's company's clients would pay those workers, and other information that may 
establish indirect economic benefits the proposed endeavor may have. See id. Although the Petitioner 
asserts that she would share her human resources knowledge by providing consulting services, 
training, and generalized "events," the record does not establish how the knowledge the Petitioner 
would share to unspecified clients, trainees, and other audiences may have the type of national or even 
global implications within the field of human resources, such as those resulting from certain improved 
manufacturing processes or medical advances, contemplated by Dhanasar. See id. 
In summation, we have reviewed the record in its entirety; however, 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. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating 
that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision); 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. 
4