dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25691199 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 13, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources manager, 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 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 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first 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. 
They must then establish 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 matter of discretion, 1 grant a national 
interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
• 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. 2 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 SeeDhanasar , 26I&NDec . at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree 
professional and that her proposed endeavor has substantial merit. The remaining issue to be 
determined is whether she has established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies, in part, on her experience to establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner's expertise and record of success in previous positions 
are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the national importance of her proposed work. 
She also reiterates the importance of human resource management. In determining national 
importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession 
in which an individual will work; instead, we focus on the "specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Id at 889. We further indicated 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. 
As explained by the Director, in Dhanasar, we determined that 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. Similarly, the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's job as a human 
resources manager would impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to her 
employer(s). 
We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national 
importance due to the shortage of professionals. The Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage. Further, shortages of 
qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor 
certification process. 
The Petitioner does not off er sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Furthermore, the Petitioner 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 for our nation. Without 
evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to her future 
work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the 
Petitioner's endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
Because the identified basis for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually , we have reviewed and considered each one . 
2 
and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under 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 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). 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver. 
Thus, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3