dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25692774 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2023 
Form 1-140, 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 that the Petitioner is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating 
her petition, disregarded the expert opinion letters, and disregarded the regulation contained in 20 
C.F.R. § 656.3, making it legally impossible for an entrepreneur to file a labor certification on his or 
her own behalf. 
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 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. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 2, 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposed to work in the United States as a human resources manager through her 
company, 0 ,lwhich was formed in Florida in 2018. She previously worked as an event 
coordinator and a human resources specialist at a luxury French restaurant in Florida from August 
2018 to July 2019. The Petitioner holds a master of arts degree in human resource management from 
I I University in Florida. The Director determined that the Petitioner is eligible for 
the EB-2 visa classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we agree. 
The remaining issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner is eligible or otherwise merits a waiver of that 
classification's job offer requirement. We conclude that she is not. 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 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 whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we 
consider its potential prospective impact. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but has no 
national importance. The Petitioner stated that her goal is to use her experience and knowledge to 
provide human resources consulting services to new and small businesses to hire and retain the best 
suited employees to carry out and expand their businesses and that through her work, she intends to 
make major contributions to the human resources industry and to the U.S. economy. Based on her 
goal and intent, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has substantial merit. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
2 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). 
2 
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. In addition, we 
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. 
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. The Petitioner is 
listed as the registered agent and a manager of I which was formed in Florida in I 
2018. The Petitioner claimed that she has provided services to different companies and individuals, 
including since April 2020. The Petitioner further stated that I I I has retained her services to handle their VIP customers, including hiring the personnel who will 
directly handle the company's more valuable customers. However, the record does not contain 
sufficient corroborating evidence. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojfici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal[fornia, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that her proposed endeavor to work as a human resources consultant 
through her company is of national importance because it has "a significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers and substantial positive effects." 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 the Petitioner plans to offer services nor has she offered evidence 
of a direct connection between her human resources consulting services and a boost in her client's 
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 reach the level of substantial positive effects. The record does not establish 
that her human resources consulting business would be of a size or income level that would suggest 
the ability to generate substantial positive economic effects. Without sufficient documentary evidence 
that her proposed job duties as a human resources manager at her company would impact the human 
resources industry more broadly rather than benefiting her clients and their customers, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from _______ a professor of marketing 
management atOUniversity. Professor I I states that the Petitioner, as a human resources 
consultant for her company, will create further employment opportunities and qualify a number of 
individuals to work in their distinct industries, providing them with the knowledge and skills needed, 
consequently benefiting the wider U.S. economy. The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion 
letter from I I a professor of marketing at I I State University. Professor 
I I states that human resource management involves creating work, assessing human resource 
concepts, recruiting potential employees, job training, and career advance and that in this context, it 
benefits the nation's overall labor market, economy, and business industry. Professor I further 
3 
states that the Petitioner will use her experience in human resources and change management to help 
small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States improve operations and achieve better 
productivity and profitability levels, thereby generating revenues within the country and creating 
employment opportunities. 
The input of any professionals in the relevant field or industry is respected and valuable in assessing 
a claim of a national interest waiver. However, the expert opinion letters do not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has significant potential to employee U.S. 
workers or otherwise offers "substantial positive economic effects" for our nation contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Id. at 890. For example, the professors have not provided any analysis or numerical 
breakdowns to substantiate how the Petitioner's human resources consulting would benefit the 
nation's labor market, economy, and business industry. The professors have not offered sufficient 
evidence that the Petitioner's human resources consulting services through her company would enable 
her client to employ a significant population of workers in an economically depressed area or that her 
endeavor would offer a particular U.S. region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels or business activity. Nor have the professors demonstrated that any increase in the 
client's revenue attributable to the Petitioner's human resources consulting services stands to 
substantially affect economic activity regionally or nationally. Therefore, the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a recommendation letter from the owner and co-founder of 
I I in Florida. The letter states that in 2018, the club used the Petitioner's services to create a 
business plan for a new line of business for the club and that the Petitioner had a short term to complete 
the work, but she delivered a high-quality final product. The Petitioner also submitted a 
recommendation letter from a former general manager ofl I which states that the 
Petitioner worked for the restaurant from 2018 to 2019 as an event coordinator and a human resources 
specialist. The letter further states that the Petitioner played an important role in hiring the right 
personnel for events and in ensuring that all the required paperwork was in compliance with the 
pertinent regulation. While these letters demonstrate the Petitioner's past work experience and 
contributions to her former client and employer, they do not support that her proposed endeavor to 
work as a human resources consultant through her company has "a significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers" or "substantial positive effects" as claimed by the Petitioner. 
Furthermore, to support the claim that her profession and proposed endeavor are of national 
importance, the Petitioner submitted two articles. The first article titled "The State of Small Business 
in America 2016" states that small businesses have the power to transform America because small 
business owners apply their extraordinary potential to spark competition, drive innovation, build 
communities, and better the quality of life for citizens. The second article titled "The Advantages of 
Outsourcing HR Functions" provides four main advantages of outsourcing human resources functions: 
ensure the business is in compliance, improve the employee experience, offer better benefits, and 
reduce costs. The Petitioner contends that her role as a human resources consultant is critical to 
enhancing the productivity of companies and the entire industry. While these articles indicate the 
importance of small businesses in the U.S. economy and highlight the advantages of outsourcing 
human resources functions for businesses, they do not specifically show how the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor to work as a human resources manager would impact the human resources industry more 
4 
broadly rather than benefiting her clients and their customers. The record does not sufficiently indicate 
how providing human resources consulting services to companies and individuals will translate into 
broader implications in the human resources industry or in the U.S. economy. The Petitioner has not 
otherwise provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of her 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two AAO non-precent decisions in which each petitioner had 
submitted a Form I-140 seeking classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the business 
and we sustained the appeal. First, these two petitioners sought an immigrant visa classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability (EB-1 ), which is different from an immigrant visa classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability (EB-
2) sought by the Petitioner in the instant case. Second, neither decision was published as a precedent 
and, therefore, these decisions do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, 
and applicable law and policy. 
Because the documentation in the record does not sufficiently establish the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets the second and third prongs of the Dhansar framework 
and submits a decision and order issued by an administrative law judge of the U.S. Department of Labor, 
affirming the denial of an employer's application for permanent employment certification. The Petitioner 
also submits 20 C.F.R. § 656, which sets forth labor certification process for permanent employment of 
noncitizens in the United States, to support her claim that the Director disregarded the regulation 
contained in 20 C.F.R. § 656.3, making it legally impossible for an entrepreneur to file a labor certification 
on his or her own behalf. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claims, but since the identified basis for this 
decision is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will reserve these issues for future consideration 
should the need arise. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has shown that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
and that her proposed endeavor to work in the United States as a human resources manager through 
her company has substantial merit, she has not shown that her proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that 
she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5