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: 28540845 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resource specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as 
well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. 
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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 1, grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• 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. 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As it relates to the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. At initial filing, the 
Petitioner's cover letter stated: 
Based on his solid background of more than 25 years of experience, moving through 
different but related professional sectors, that contributed to the excellence of the craft 
in which his career culminated, [the Petitioner] intends to open a HRM [Human 
Resource Management] consultancy company in the United States, in the state of 
Florida. It will be a HRM consulting firm [sic] will be called I I and will 
specially help small to mid-sized businesses (SMEs) improve workflows and internal 
communication, better engage with clients and customers, effectively 
managing/analyzing data, and promoting employee engagement. 
Under his direction,! lwill create further employment opportunities and qualify 
individuals to work in the human resources consulting sector, thereby fulfilling U.S. 
industry needs and benefiting the wider U.S. economy. Under [the Petitioner's] 
leadership,! lwill target small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in the U.S. 
as well as American companies working in Brazil. 
._____.IHR will target all medium-sized companies in Florida from Year 1, but his 
company will be capable of providing consultancy in the way that the clients find most 
appropriate for certation situations (whether online or in person), being able to travel 
for the amount of time necessary to deliver the best people management and human 
resources advisory services. The Company will then further expand its target areas 
onto New York,I I and Texas in Year 3, Year 4, and Year 5, respectively. In 
addition to businesses in the U.S.,I lwill strive to attract American companies 
operating in Brazil. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: 
[The Petitioner] plans to establish a U.S.-based company calledl IHuman 
Resources ... , which will specialize in human resources consulting services. As the Chief 
Executive Officer and Lead Human Resources Consultant, [the Petitioner] will spearhead 
the company's efforts to create employment opportunities and develop the skills of 
professionals in the human resources consulting sector. Through its services, I I 
will address the needs of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the U.S. and 
American companies operating in Brazil. 
[The Petitioner's] vision for I I aligns with the goal of meeting the demands of the 
U.S. industry and contributing to the growth of the country's economy. B[ offering 
specialized consulting services to SMEs and American companies in Brazil, I 
aims to foster innovation and create value for its clients. With [the Petitioner's] 
2 
leadership, the company will establish itself as a trusted partner in the human resources 
consulting sector, providing customized solutions that help its clients achieve their goals. 
In addition to serving businesses in the U.S., the petitioner's company aims to attract 
American companies operating in Brazil. With a deep understanding of the cultural and 
business landscape in both countries, the petitioner's company is uniquely positioned to 
provide valuable insights and solutions to our clients. The Latin American market, 
particularly Brazil, has become an attractive destination for American businesses dues to 
the lack of Western brand competition and continued growth in the e-commerce sector, 
even amidst the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic .... 
The Director determined the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor's substantial merit but not 
its national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains: 
[The] Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to open a HRM consultancy company in the 
United States, in the state of Florida. It will be a HRM consulting firm [sic] will be 
calledl land will specially help small to mid-sized businesses (SMEs) improve 
workflows and internal communication, better engage with clients and customers, 
effectively managing/analyzing data, and promoting employee engagement. 
In 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 specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Although the Petitioner 
argues that "[h ]uman resources and their management play a vital role in the development of a nation," 
the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed endeavor of 
providing consultancy services through the operation o±1 lrather than the importance of human 
resources and related fields and industries. 2 In Dhanasar, we noted 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." Id. We also 
stated 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. 
The Petitioner also references his "superior performance in the field, professional achievements, and 
expertise." However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, abilities, and prior accomplishments relate to 
the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to 
the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor he proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
Moreover, to evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence contained in the record relate more to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed 
endeavor rather than the national imp01iance part. 
3 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his proposed endeavor 
of owning and operating a human resources consulting service largely influences the field and rises to 
the level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Likewise, the record does not show through supporting documentation how 
I I stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective clients, to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, although the Petitioner provided a business plan for I I the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. While the total sales forecast $358K in year 1 to $1.830M in year 5, 
the business plan does not establish that the benefits to the regional or national economy would reach 
the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, 
although the plan claims the business would create 4 positions in year 1, one of which is allocated to 
the Petitioner, to 14 positions in year 5, which includes the Petitioner's position, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to I I 
Florida or other future areas, or the region or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. The Petitioner, for instance, did not show that such employment figures 
would utilize a significant population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation 
and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not 
establish that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level of having national 
importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4