dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources And Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31200892 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources and business development 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. 
§el 153(b )(2).e 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
estab lish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement 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. MatterofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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 "nationa l interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicat ing national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discret ion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner is the owner, manager and employee of
I I her family's telecommunications and energy company in Ecuador. She began working in 
human resources in 2015 and is now the company's human resources and business development 
manager. 
The Petitioner states that her proposed endeavor is to expand her family's business in the United States 
to operate a Florida-based business, as a human resources and business 
development manager. She asserts that the U.S. company will: 
• Manage administrative processes for the business; 
• Open a warehouse to manage a purchasing department for specific equipment and 
machinery for export to Latin America, as well as for storage to support operations 
in the United States, and; 
• Use expertise on renewable and clean energy to install, repair, maintain and relocate 
photovoltaic system operations. 
With the initial filing the Petitioner submitted evidence of her education and experience, a resume, a 
business plan describing her proposed endeavor and claimed eligibility for a national interest waiver, 
and recommendation and support letters. She also provided a summary of her assets. 
Following initial review, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), allowing the Petitioner an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to establish her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. In the RFE, the Director determined that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit 
of the proposed endeavor and that she is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. The 
Director determined, however, that the Petitioner had not established that the proposed endeavor was 
of national importance, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Director specifically requested "a 
detailed description of the proposed endeavor and why it is of national importance." 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE includes articles and industry reports discussing the importance 
of infrastructure development and renewable energy and identifying clean energy as a national 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds a U.S. master's degree in international business earned in 2019, and a 
U.S. master's degree in international marketing earned in 2020. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). 
2 
initiative. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of certificates and awards awarded by __to 
_ in Ecuador for its partnership, cooperation and collaboration. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's RFE response, the Director determined that the Petitioner had 
established that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor had national 
importance or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer, and thus of the labor certification. The Director stated that the Petitioner's evidence did 
not explain how her proposed endeavor as a human resources and business development manager is 
of national importance. The Director further stated that the record did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's endeavor will have a regional or national impact at a level consistent with having national 
importance, or that the Petitioner's work will have broader implications in her field of endeavor. 
Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national interest factors 
such as the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit of her prospective contributions to the 
United States, an urgent national interest in her contributions, the potential creation ofjobs, or that her 
self-employment does not adversely affect U.S. workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert that the Director erred in any conclusions of law or fact or 
misapplied USCIS policy in the decision. The Petitioner states that she is submitting the appeal "in 
efforts to better reflect [her] proposed endeavor and ask DHS to reconsider the case based on the 
additional evidence." She submits an updated personal statement, an updated business plan, and a tax 
document that describes the economic activities of I I in Ecuador. She states that this evidence 
"offers deeper insight into how I I can contribute to the growth and prosperity of the United 
States." 
A. 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 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, 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 Id. 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. 
As noted above, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a detailed description of her proposed 
endeavor in the RFE. Despite this opportunity, the Petitioner did not provide the requested detailed 
description. On appeal, the Petitioner does not explain why this requested evidence was not submitted 
in response to the RFE. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
3 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). As in the present matter, 
where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). 
Even if we consider the Petitioner's evidence for the first time on appeal, we would still dismiss this 
appeal. In addressing the proposed endeavor's national importance, the Petitioner's updated business 
plan relies on the merits of the services her business has provided in Ecuador and the importance of 
renewable energy solutions. Although she provides a job creation summary for the installation and 
maintenance of solar panels, she has not supported these assertions with sufficient independent, 
objective evidence. The evidence does not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve 
upon those already available and in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that 
the use of the Petitioner's experience will reach beyond benefitting her own company and clients or 
have broader implications within the field of telecommunications and energy. The record does not 
establish that her proposed endeavor stands to impact the field as a whole. 
As the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further 
discussion of the balancing factors under the remaining prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met all of the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, we conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national 
interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4