dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources Counseling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 20, 2023 In Re: 28467050 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a corporate human resource counselor, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not 
established 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
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). 
• 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 concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Accordingly, the remaining issue to be determined on appeal is whether the 
Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen proposes to undertake. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 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. 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, stated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, that 
she intends to work in the United States as a corporate human resource counselor. In a letter of support, 
her counsel stated as follows: 
[The Petitioner] intends to continue her work in the discipline of human resources 
through her company.__ _______ ___, with the potential to create jobs for U.S. 
workers and contribute [to] the U.S. economy. Furthermore, her role as a corporate 
human resource counselor will empower small and medium business[es] in the U.S. to 
become more efficient and profitable in their operations by way of promoting healthy 
work environments that allow for happy and productive employees. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of industry articles and reports as well as letters of 
recommendation in support of her eligibility. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's initial filing did not identify her proposed endeavor with 
sufficient detail, and issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) demonstrating the proposed 
endeavor's substantial merit and national importance. In response, the Petitioner submitted a personal 
statement, where she stated that she: 
[C]reated an experimental system to address customers['] emotions, which involved 
immediate, need-based interaction with me as their family therapist. I made myself 
available to customers almost on a permanent basis through phone so that I could assist 
to the develorment of their emotions instantly. I named this system I I 
I 
She further stated that she decided to disseminate her ~--------~through an online 
platform called l tand began "expanding [her] experiment" into additional business 
settings other than hospital and medical environments. She concluded by stating that she intended to 
2 
continue this expansion in the field of human resources through her U.S. company, which was 
incorporated in Florida in 2016. 
The Petitioner also submitted additional support letters and industry articles m support of her 
eligibility. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that although the proposed endeavor had substantial 
merit, the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work would 
impact the regional or national population at a level consistent with national importance. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the benefits of her proposed U.S. employment 
would reach beyond her clients to affect her field or the United States more broadly. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims that the Director's decision was erroneous, and asserts that the Director erred by 
applying a "stricter standard of proof' when evaluating the national importance element ofDhanasar' s 
first prong and not analyzing the totality of the evidence, including her personal statement and 
probative research. 
With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a petitioner must establish that they meet each 
eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I& N Dec. at 375-76. In other words, a petitioner must show that what they claim is "more likely 
than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a petitioner has met their 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. at 376; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 
(Comm'r 1989). Here, the Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed 
her evidence to evaluate whether she had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
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 Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Generally, we look 
to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of a petitioner's work. The Petitioner 
submitted articles and reports addressing the importance of human resources and its impact on the 
U.S. economy, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognize the value of 
human resources services; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
Similarly, the Petitioner's personal statement emphasizes the value of human resources and human 
resources counseling instead of focusing on the prospective impact of her specific endeavor. The 
Petitioner discusses the benefits of human resources counseling, highlighting how her endeavor will 
help promote healthy work environments for businesses and stimulate the economy by creating jobs 
and revenue. However, the Petitioner does not point to any corroborating evidence that would directly 
link her specific endeavor to the overall economy's growth. The Petitioner must support her assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The Petitioner also provided recommendation letters from former colleagues in Brazil, who attested 
to the quality of her work. Although the letters praise her qualifications and professional 
accomplishments, the Petitioner's skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the 
3 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor she proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first prong. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional support letters from clients discussing how 
her.....,...___--,-___,,.....,..-....,......... has benefitted their individual businesses. While their praise of the 
Petitioner's methodology is noted, the letters discuss the impact of the Petitioner's work to their own 
experiences rather than the required broad impact to the business and finance sector. See id. at 889. 
We noted in Dhanasar that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and 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. Although the Petitioner recounts the value and importance 
of human resources counseling and its general impact on business growth, Dhanasar requires us to 
focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," not the importance 
of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work. Id. at 889. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate how her business operations will have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that her company's operations would provide 
substantial economic benefits to Florida or the region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance, nor did she demonstrate that her business operations would 
substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where her company will 
operate is economically depressed; that her company would employ a significant population of 
workers in those areas; or that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial 
economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Without such 
evidence, we cannot evaluate the proposed endeavor's impact on job creation or its overall economic 
impact. As such, the Petitioner has not supported a claim that her proposed endeavor stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond her customers to impact the human resources field at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
Finally, we note the Petitioner's submission of two of our non-precedent decisions on appeal, in which 
each petitioner sought classification as an individual of extraordinary ability and we sustained the 
appeals. First, these two petitioners sought employment-based fust preference (EB-1) immigrant 
classification, which is different from the EB-2 immigrant classification 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. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor has national importance, 
as required by the first Dhanasar prong; therefore, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver. 
We reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second or third Dhanasar prong. 
4 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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). 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she has not demonstrated eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal 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. Since the identified 
basis for this decision is dispositive of her appeal, we will reserve this issue for future consideration should the need arise. 
See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26; see also L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. at 516, n.7. 
5