dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 05, 2023 In Re: 29337686 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for anational interest waiver under the framework outlined in Matter of Dhanasar, 
26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 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 of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. In so doing, the Director addressed the occupational demand and 
shortage of professionals in her field, the claimed "ripple effects" of her endeavor, and the importance 
of her profession, among other topics. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, reasserting her 
eligibility . In support, she relies upon the evidence and arguments previously provided. In fact, the 
Petitioner's brief on appeal reads quite similarly to the letter she submitted with her petition's initial 
filing. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the first 
Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 
113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) Uoining eight circuit courts in holding that appellate 
adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did not sufficiently 
review all evidence. Specifically, she asserts the Director did not sufficiently consider her business 
plan, recommendation letters, industry reports and articles, and resume. However, in the decision, the 
Director discussed the Petitioner's qualifications and experience, as well as specifically referenced 
and analyzed the business plan, recommendation letters, and industry reports and articles. Although 
the Petitioner states the Director did not consider the Petitioner's vast contributions in the field, she 
does not identify what these contributions are or how they affected the field. The record does not 
contain evidence suggesting the Petitioner's services are better, different, or cost less than those 
already available in the United States. Furthermore, the Director explained that the Petitioner's career 
accomplishments, success on projects, and the results she achieved for her employers and clients are 
not indicative of contributions in the field but rather to those who hire her for her services. The 
Petitioner does not explain what specific content the Director failed to consider or how the record 
contains evidence that overcomes the Director's analysis and findings. Therefore, we do not find 
support for the Petitioner's assertion that the Director applied a stricter standard of proof and did not 
properly review all evidence. 
The Petitioner provided statistics about the human resources consulting field, among other related 
fields, comparing her endeavor's potential impact to that of industry giants such as Deloitte. However, 
the Director determined that the evidence did not establish how the Petitioner's endeavor operates on 
a scale rising to the level of national importance. Deloitte's statistics and other similar evidence are 
not comparable to the Petitioner's endeavor in either size or scope and therefore, they are not probative 
of the broader implications of the proposed endeavor. While the evidence demonstrates the 
importance of the industry and the professions within it, the Director already explained that this is not 
sufficient to establish the national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
The Director considered the endeavor's projected revenue and job creation figures and the potential 
"ripple effects" of her endeavor, but nevertheless determined that her assertions were insufficient to 
establish the endeavor's national importance. The Petitioner has not provided a sufficient foundation 
for these projections, such as the number and size of clients she will need to achieve them. As such, 
they appear to be little more than conjecture. The Petitioner intends to locate her business in 
HUBZones; however, this does not substantiate the Petitioner's economic growth projections.1 
Moreover, she has not demonstrated she is a HUBZone program participant or that she will hire and 
serve only those individuals and businesses located within HubZones. 
As stated, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
first Dhanasar prong.2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 HUBZone is a federal program involving '"historically underutilized business zones." 
2 Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2