dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 25, 2024 In Re: 34828687 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources and organizational development consultant, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish 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 pursuant to 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 qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 
they must then demonstrate 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 a matter of discretion, 1 grant a 
national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal 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. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
According to the cover letter provided with the initial filing, the Petitioner "presents a proposed 
endeavor as a human resources consultant and organizational development professional" and her 
"unique and substantial work experiences have led her to the creation of her own methodologies and 
laid foundations of creating organizational roadmap detailing the business/strategic goals of an 
organization/firm or institution." The Petitioner indicated that she "has had the combination of 
experience, knowledge, and ability to substantially contribute to the human resources field in the 
United States" and her "field of endeavor has substantial merit and national importance." 
The Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner's initial filing did not demonstrate the proposed 
endeavor's national importance and issued a request for evidence. In response, the Petitioner 
submitted additional documentation, to include recommendation letters, articles and reports discussing 
human resources and organizational development, and information related to her employment, 
income, and achievements. The Petitioner indicated that her proposed endeavor as a human resources 
manager with a specialization in human resources and organizational development has national 
importance because "human resource management is a necessary component of business success" and 
her endeavor "carries broader implications in improving public administration in the United States 
which rises beyond the organizations she will work for" to the level of national importance. In 
addition, her endeavor "as a human resources manager specializing in human resources and 
development" has a potential to employ U.S. workers; advance U.S. foreign policy goals and global 
human resources for U.S. entities working abroad; play a role in healthcare enforcement; improve 
labor relations and education nationally; and enhance the national security workforce, climate change 
mitigation efforts, and migration management. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that though her proposed endeavor as a human 
resources consultant had substantial merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the prospective impact of her endeavor rises to the level of national importance. The Director 
found that the evidence did not demonstrate the benefit of the Petitioner's endeavor would extend 
beyond potential clients or have broader implications to the overall field at a level sufficient to 
2 
demonstrate national importance. Further, the Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor 
would result in significant job growth or "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by 
Dhanasar. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she is providing new evidence to be considered as part of her 
eligibility determination and submits a business plan and associated documents related to her newly 
established company in Virginia, news articles discussing the Petitioner and her achievements, and 
recommendation letters. The Petitioner asserts that the business plan outlines her "entrepreneurial 
endeavors and demonstrates [her] ability to establish and operate a successful business in the United 
States" and "provides a clear and compelling demonstration of [her] ability to create jobs, drive 
economic growth, and make a positive contribution to the U.S. economy." The Petitioner indicates 
that her endeavor "aims to enhance the effectiveness and readiness of existing and potential employees 
in U.S. Foreign Service and global development institutions through specialized HR and Organization 
Development (OD) services." She states that her endeavor focuses on "talent pipeline planning and 
management, human capital development, and work readiness training for employees, with a special 
emphasis on youth-at-risk and minority groups. These efforts will complement existing training 
initiatives for U.S. personnel in foreign postings and initiatives to rehabilitate youth-at-risk and 
minority groups in economically depressed cities across the U.S." The Petitioner argues that her 
proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement and she outlines how the endeavor 
will increase employment of a diverse workforce, partner with advocacy groups to address aspects of 
social justice and human rights, and provide services and targeted training to enhance national security. 
We note that the Petitioner provided new facts and evidence on appeal to support the claim that her 
proposed endeavor meets the national importance requirement. However, the business plan, 
documents related to her newly established company, and additional recommendation letters, are dated 
subsequent to the filing date of the instant petition in February 2024. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility for the benefit she is seeking at the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa 
petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Upon review of the record as a whole, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation 
and weighed the evidence to evaluate whether she had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. In determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Generally, we look to evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. We noted in Dhanasar that 
"we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner discusses the value and importance of human 
resource and organizational development consultancy services and its impact on the U.S. economy 
and society, Dhanasar requires us to focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake," not the importance of the field, industry, or profession. Id. at 889. 
3 
The Petitioner provided recommendation letters and documents relating to her education and 
professional experience. However, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities 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 she proposes to undertake has 
national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. The record in its totality does not show through 
supporting documentation how the Petitioner's specific services stand to sufficiently extend beyond 
her prospective clients to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. Further 
analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would 
serve no meaningful purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 1976) (stating that agencies 
are not required to make 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4