dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 02, 2024 In Re: 33400853 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record 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 l&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: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposed to start a company specializing in human resources, m 
which she would serve as general manager and lead consultant. In creating this company, the 
Petitioner intends to work with a broad spectrum of individual clients at every stage of their career 
development. The Petitioner expressed intent to focus on diversity and inclusion by offering 
workshops that focus on workplace skills to vulnerable populations, such as youth from disadvantaged 
backgrounds. The Petitioner also plans to provide aspiring entrepreneurs with support. 
In the denial decision, the Director did not address whether the Petitioner established eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability. 
Rather, the Director denied the petition based on determining the Petitioner did not establish the 
proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance and that, on balance, waiving 
the job offer would benefit the United States. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong of the Dhanasar framework for adjudicating a national interest waiver, substantial 
merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to 
undertake. Matter ofDhanasar, 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. Id. at 889. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. 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 Director determined the evidence did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as she did not demonstrate it would have broader implications in the field; have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers; have substantial positive effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area; broadly enhance societal welfare, or broadly enhance cultural or artistic 
enrichment. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor has national importance due, in part, to its 
anticipated economic effect. The Petitioner asserts she plans to primarily operate in Florida but is also 
open to extending her services in additional states and regions, including economically distressed 
areas. The Petitioner contends she intends to hire nine consultants over a five-year period and that her 
direct hires could result in the creation of additional indirect positions. However, the Petitioner does 
not specify the nature or quantity of the indirect jobs she anticipates her company will create. 
Similarly, the record does not contain supporting evidence corroborating the projected employment 
and financial figures indicated in the Petitioner's business plan or establish the significance of this 
data to show the endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits to the region or national 
economy more broadly at the requisite level. The Petitioner asserts the nature of her work, seamlessly 
connecting individuals with employer positions, will positively affect both the unemployment rate and 
companies' growth. But the Petitioner does not clarify how her human resources company, connecting 
individuals with hiring companies, will affect the overall unemployment rate. While any economic 
activity has the potential to positively impact the economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how 
the potential economic activity of her specific endeavor stands to create substantial positive economic 
effects in the relevant region or that her endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers is significant. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not established the economic benefits of her work, assisting individuals in 
finding employment, will extend sufficiently beyond impacting her own individual clients and the 
companies in which they are placed, at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also claims her proposed endeavor has national importance because it will create 
opportunities for individuals in particular need of employment or support. Specifically, the Petitioner 
asserts her inclusive hiring strategy will reach low-income Americans and unemployed individuals 
from marginalized communities. The Petitioner claims she will empower these individuals by 
providing access to job opportunities, offer workshops focusing on skills essential for the workforce, 
and enhance support through partnerships with NGOs and nonprofit organizations. 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. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established her proposed endeavor would sufficiently extend beyond the individual clients and 
companies she works with to impact the field of human resources more broadly, at a level 
commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner further contends her proposed endeavor has national importance, as it impacts a matter 
government entities have deemed important and for which governmental initiatives have been created. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims her endeavor will tackle the worker shortage, ensure all individuals 
will have access to meaningful employment opportunities, and prepare underserved youth for success 
in the labor market. We do not discount the importance of these issues, but our assessment of national 
importance does not focus on the importance of issues to the field in general, but instead "focuses on 
the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposed to undertake." Id. at 889. In Dhanasar, 
significant weight was accorded to "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest in the 
petitioner's specific research." Id. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the potential 
prospective impact of her specific endeavor to a matter that is the subject of governmental importance. 
Overall, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information to establish her proposed endeavor is 
nationally important and, as such, has not satisfied prong one of the Dhanasar framework to establish 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
3 
B. Additional Dhanasar Prong 
As our finding on this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve her arguments relating to the Director's adverse determinations of her eligibility under the 
third prong of the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
"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 ofL-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). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4