dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 20, 2024 In Re: 32462126 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a Human Resources professional and Entrepreneur, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer and labor certification 
requirements for EB-2 classification. 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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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, a citizen and national of Brazil, seeks a waiver of the job offer and labor certification 
requirements of EB-2 classification based on her proposed endeavor of offering her expertise as an 
entrepreneur in the field of human resources (HR). The Director determined that the Petitioner 
qualified as a professional with an advanced degree, so the sole issue on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established eligibility for a waiver in the exercise of discretion. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner proposes to create a human resources consultancy organization, 
inl IFlorida. The business plan provided to the Director indicates she intends to leverage her 
experience as a HR professional to create her own company providing consulting services to small 
and medium organizations. Specifically, she states: 
All in all, will support human resources processes in U.S. 
corporations with special attention to retention and engagement. The company will 
seek fast and consistent results, making it stand out in the American market and 
establish itself quickly and effectively, strengthening the American economy and 
generating direct and indirect jobs for American workers. 
In this way, in terms of locale, the business is to be located across HUBZone areas, 
which are part of a United States Business Administration program for small companies 
that operate and employ people in historically underutilized business zones. The aim 
is to generate jobs for U.S. workers in these underserved areas, while at the same time 
offering them opportunities to build up and expand their professional possibilities. This 
will improve wages and working conditions for American citizens, and also boost 
investment and economic development throughout such local communities. 
The business plan goes on to state that it will be initially located inl IFlorida with operations 
scheduled for 2024. The business plan listedl Iinitial main services as Advisory 
Services, Business Package - HR Policies & Procedures Implementation, Employee Trainings and 
Development, and Workshop (2-days event). 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner provided the Director with a business plan, resume, diploma, academic evaluation, 
employment verification letters, evidence of the Petitioner's work in the field, letters of 
recommendation, and industry report and articles. However, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish her eligibility under any of the three 
prongs of the Dhanasar framework and denied the petition. Thus, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof . 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law .... " (emphasis omitted). The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume outlining her experience; the business plan which extensively 
describes her credentials, expertise, and professional accomplishments and the projected benefits she 
offers the United States; evidence of the Petitioner's work in the field demonstrating her vast 
contributions; letters of recommendation; and industry report and articles showing the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor and the steep shortage of professionals in her field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation praising her personal and professional 
achievements and qualifications. However, as the Director observed, the authors did not discuss the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor or meaningfully demonstrate how it would have national importance 
for the United States. We acknowledge that the Petitioner's experience and professional 
accomplishments would make her invaluable to any organization. However, the Petitioner's reliance 
on her professional experience and professional achievements to establish the national importance of 
her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her professional experience relates to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 3 Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the 
Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that she will create value for U.S. organizations through "improved 
performance, achieved by providing objective advice regarding the optimization of business processes 
using respected industry methodologies" and "implementing effective HR development, and strategic 
planning." The record includes a business plan which argues that her proposed endeavor has national 
importance based on potential economic benefits to the "underutilized" business area of I 
Florida. 
3 
I 
The Petitioner argues that her business has the potential to significantly contribute to the U.S. economy 
through job creation and economic impact. She states that it is her intention to promote economic 
development by serving both businesses and individuals throughout the country. She notes that HR 
consulting accounts for an estimated 28.8% of industry revenue in 2021. The Petitioner asserts that 
in addition to its economic impact, her endeavor also "benefits the national interests of the United 
States." (emphasis omitted). She points out that small businesses have been majorly affected by the 
COVID-19 pandemic with respect to mass layoffs and closures, the risk of closure with negatively 
associated lengthy waits to reopen, and an undetermined likelihood of COVID-19 related disruption. 
The Petitioner claims that many small businesses are financially fragile, and a majority of businesses 
planned on seeking fonding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) 
Act. The Petitioner proffers that her business is perfectly suited to assist small and medium sized 
businesses, and her 13 years' experience in the HR consulting and business industry will progressively 
and positively impact the U.S. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that she is knowledgeable regarding 
potentially profitable markets for U.S. companies in regions that are economically strategic, yet 
extremely complex; and able to advise corporations about potential opportunities for business 
development and corporate expansion, as well as effective HR strategies and initiatives. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, she has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate 
them. She has not identified any specific human resources consulting engagements for which she 
plans to offer services, nor has she offered evidence of a direct connection between her human 
resources consulting services and a boost in her clients' product or services sales. As such, she has 
not demonstrated that any of those potential sales are of such a magnitude as to affect a particular 
industry, jobs, or the U.S. economy. Further, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the 
regional or national economy resulting from her human resources consulting work would result in 
substantial positive effects. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicates that she intends to hire 29 employees in a five-year period. 
However, she has not established that the potential employment of 29 employees at the planned rate 
of pay would have substantial positive effects inl IFlorida with its population of 442, 241. 2 See 
https://data.census.gov/profile~ [Florida! I The business plan 
does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor offers benefits which extend beyond the community 
to impact business industry more broadly. Although the business plan claimed that 145 indirect jobs 
would be created, there was insufficient detail provided about the location of these jobs and whether 
there would be substantial positive effects in an economically depressed area as contemplated by the 
first Dhanasar prong. Id. at 889-90. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor, including the asserted economic benefits to the United States and the areas it intends to 
serve. The Petitioner has documented the growth of the human resources industry as a whole and 
provided articles and industry reports to support her assertions. However, the growth and importance 
of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar 
framework. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 
2 At the time of decision, the Director referenced a population of 439, 890 in Miami, Florida but did not provide a source 
for this information. 
4 
889. 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 the field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Similarly, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially 
benefit the field of human resources, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a ]n undertaking may have 
national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." 
Id. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's human resources consulting business would 
impact the field more broadly. 
The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence to support her claims that her business' 
activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits to underutilized business communities or the 
United States. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the 
potential to provide economic benefits to the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Also, 
without sufficient documentary evidence that her proposed job duties as the owner of her human 
resources consulting business would impact the human resources field more broadly, rather than 
benefiting her business and her clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
As stated in her business plan, the Petitioner's intention to base her company in a Small Business 
Administration (SBA) HUBZone is unpersuasive. The HUBZone program's goal is to promote 
business growth in underutilized business zones with the goal of awarding 3% of federal contract 
dollars to companies that are HUBZone certified. Joining the HUBZone program makes a business 
eligible to compete for certain federal contracts in the "set-aside" category. There are several required 
qualifications to participate in the program, but the most dispositive requirement for purposes of our 
analysis is that the business seeking to participate in the HUBZone program must be at least 51 % 
owned by U.S. citizens, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an Alaska 
Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. The record is clear that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be wholly owned and controlled by the Petitioner and that the 
Petitioner is not a U.S. citizen, a community development corporation, an agricultural cooperative, an 
Alaska Native corporation, a Native Hawaiian organization, or an Indian tribe. And to the extent the 
Petitioner asserts that she would base her company in an SBA HUBZone designated underutilized 
business zone, the record does not adequately establish that increased employment in these designated 
underutilized business zones would have positive economic effects commensurate with national 
importance. So, the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is wholly 
irrelevant to whether the Petitioner's endeavor rises to a level of national importance. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the effects of her proposed endeavor 
extend beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, 
she has not demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as the owner of her proposed human 
resources consulting business offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her 
industry or otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner 
claims depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary 
tie between her proposed human resources consulting work and the claimed potential economic 
benefits. 
5 
C. The Remaining Dhanasar Prongs 
Because the Petitioner does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and 
appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor and does not meet 
the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that 
she is eligible for or merits a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6