dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 28, 2023 In Re: 28053553 
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) 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 although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, he did not demonstrate 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. 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 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, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate 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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 
grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
1 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). 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Therefore, the sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. 
The Petitioner worked as a human resources manager and consultant between 2013 and 2021. The 
record reflects that in 2020 he co-founded a human resources consulting company,! I 
providing services to small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) in Colombia. He seeks to establish 
a human resources consulting company in Florida for which he will serve as general manager. 
In denying the petition, the Director addressed all three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
and concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets any of those prongs. On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that he meets all three prongs 
under the Dhanasar framework and otherwise warrants a national interest waiver as a matter of 
discretion. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. The Proposed Endeavor 
At the of filing in December 2021, the Petitioner provided a personal statement describing his proposed 
endeavor as follows: 
I aim to expand I my human resources and organizational 
development consultancy company in Colombia, to the United States, providing 
consulting services focusing primarily on SMBs in Florida then expanding to 
throughout the U.S., to achieve organizational development, growth, increase 
productivity, and improve employee well-being. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan that 
indicates that the Petitioner, through his proposed endeavor, "will devise and direct organizational and 
strategy plans, manage employee budgets, structure clients' organizational charts, oversee the 
recruitment process, plan training and development initiatives, and review employee performance." 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This prong of the 
Dhanasar framework 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, 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. The record supports the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to assist companies with optimizing their human resources 
management and planning has substantial merit. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 3 The business plan for the Petitioner's proposed company includes industry and 
market analyses, business strategies, financial forecasts, a description of company management and 
personnel, and a summary of the company's expected "National-Level Impact." According to the 
business plan, the company will contribute to "sustainable growth of the U.S. economy" by improving 
the efficiency and profitability of SMBs, paying taxes, generating direct and indirect jobs, and 
allowing the Petitioner to transfer his knowledge to individuals in the United States. The Petitioner 
states that the expansion and growth of companies assisted by his proposed endeavor "will create 
ripple effects" since "[ w ]hen small businesses thrive, it has an unrivaled ripple effect-jobs are 
created, communities are strengthened, and the whole country benefits." 
The business plan forecasts first year revenues of over $480,000, increasing to approximately $2.1 
million in year five, with expected profits of $131,964. In addition, the included personnel plan 
projects that by year five the company will employ the Petitioner as general manager along with 30 
additional employees, with total payroll expenses of approximately $1.6 million. The business plan 
also includes the company's projected payroll and income tax payments and predicts that the business 
could generate 64 indirect jobs, based on national job multipliers published by the Economic Policy 
Institute. 
In support of his claim that he can satisfy the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, the 
Petitioner provided, both before the Director and on appeal, copies of articles from business, industry, 
and government publications discussing the human resources management field, the industrial and 
organizational psychology field, the impact of poor human resource policies on companies and 
employees, and the increasing U.S. mental health crisis. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted an expert opinion letter from an associate professor atl !College, who 
addresses his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the three prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
The Director determined that the record consisted primarily of broad assertions regarding Petitioner's 
professional skills, past achievements, and the industry in which he intends to operate, but lacked 
evidence corroborating how the specific proposed endeavor would have broader implications in the 
field commensurate with national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director 
did not consider how "[his] work has and will continue to have a broader impact boosting the nation's 
economic welfare by supporting the growth of SMBs." 
The Petitioner also emphasizes his past success in the field, stating that "[g]iven his education and 
experience, [he] has the expertise to increase any SMB' s success by overseeing recruiting, hiring, 
training, and delivering tailored work systems and evaluations, bettering [the] work environment, with 
a honed understand[ing] of how work culture and human psychology impact the productivity of the 
3 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered all evidence submitted 
in support of the Petitioner's claim that the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 
3 
workforce." The Petitioner contends that "[i]t is thus in the national interest and of national importance 
that U.S. businesses have the tools and sources for growth, one of them being the indispensable help 
of seasoned professionals such as [himself]." 
When evaluating national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the 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. In Dhanasar, we further 
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. 
Here, to a significant extent, the Petitioner's business plan, personal statement, and other supporting 
evidence (such as articles and industry reports) focus on the importance of the Petitioner's industry 
and profession. Evidence that relates to the importance of the human resources and organizational 
development consulting industry, and the need for persons who possess expertise in these fields, tend 
to support the Petitioner's claim that his endeavor has substantial merit. However, such evidence does 
not demonstrate how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor stands to impact the broader field or 
otherwise establish its national importance. 
In his personal statement, the Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on his prior success as a 
human resources manager and consultant in Colombia. The record contains supporting documentation 
of his experience, including letters from his business partner and colleagues. While important, the 
Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue 
here is whether the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance 
under Dhanasar 's fust prong. A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific 
proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past achievements, just as it cannot be 
inferred based on general claims about the importance of a given field or industry. 
With respect to the submitted expert opinion letter the Petitioner provided, we observe that USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N 
Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert testimony 
based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). 
Here, much of the content of the expert opinion letter is lacking relevance to the issue at hand. 
Specifically, the letter, like the evidence discussed above, focuses on the importance of the Petitioner's 
industry, occupation, and past professional achievements, rather than addressing how the specific 
proposed endeavor would satisfy the national importance element of the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. The writer offers little or no analysis of the specific proposed endeavor and its prospective 
4 
substantial economic impact, and does not otherwise address the implications of the proposed 
endeavor on the larger field of human resources and organizational development consulting. 
The expert opinion letter the Petitioner provided cites to several industry reports, regarding the human 
resources and organizational development sector and projected employment growth in the field. The 
professor states that the Petitioner, through his company, "will indisputably benefit U.S. employers 
and the U.S economy as a whole." However, she does not indicate how the business plan supports a 
determination that the proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
substantial positive economic effects, or how it has national implications within the field. Rather, 
most of the letter's discussion of the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis focuses on the national 
importance of the industry in which the Petitioner intends to operate. 
Turning to the submitted business plan, although it reflects that the Petitioner's company will hire up to 
30 additional workers within five years, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the area where it will operate is economically depressed, that it would employ a significant 
population of workers in the area, or that the specific proposed endeavor would offer the region or its 
population a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, trade, or related 
tax revenue. On appeal, the Petitioner states that his endeavor "will have other substantially positive 
economic effects, especially in economically depressed areas," in reference to the State of Florida. 
However, he does not elaborate on, or offer further support for, this claim. 
The record does not support that the creation of 30 additional jobs in the human resources and 
organizational development sector, or the expected tax revenue generated by the company, will have 
a substantial economic benefit commensurate with the national importance element of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner asserts that the impact of the company's activities will 
result in "ripple effects" with social and economic benefits for "the whole country." He has also 
stated that the proposed endeavor will result in "sustainable growth of the U.S. economy." However, 
the burden is on the Petitioner to establish that the economic effects of his proposed endeavor are 
"substantial." 
The Petitioner did not provide specific plans, projections of indirect economic benefits, or other 
sufficient evidence to explain how his specific company activities will have broader implications in 
the field that rise to the level of national importance, or that the company's activities would impact the 
field beyond the company and its clients. As such, the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. 
regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level 
of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. For the reasons discussed, 
the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the 
first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 4 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that he has not demonstrated that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
issues in 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). 
6