dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24844887 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 10, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner , a human resources (HR) manager , 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). ThePetitioneralsoseeksanationalinterestwaiverofthejobofferrequirement 
that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver. 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. 
Matte r ofCha wathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christo '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. 
An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree above that of a bachelor 's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 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. ADV AN CED DEGREE PROFESSIONAL 
The Petitioner worked in Brazil as a traffic psychologist and as an HR analyst until she entered the 
United States in May 2015. She was still in the United States when she filed the petition on December 
2019. Shortly after she filed the petition, the Petitioner established a limited liability company in 
Florida, intending to provide human resources management services to small businesses. 
In the denial notice, the Director only addressed the national interest waiver, and not the underlying 
question of whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification. For the reasons 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the classification. 
The Petitioner does not claim to qualify for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and 
she does not claim to hold an actual advanced degree. Instead, when she filed the petition, she asserted 
that she is a member of the professions who holds the equivalent of a master's degree in the form of a 
bachelor's degree and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. The record, however, 
does not support this assertion. 
The Petitioner earned a degree in psychology from 
in Brazil in June 2009. An evaluation in the record indicates that this degree is equivalent to a 
baccalaureate degree from a U.S. institution. The Petitioner entered the United States in May 2015 as 
a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, and the record does not show that she was ever authorized to work in 1he 
United States before she filed the petition in December 2019. Therefore, it appears that the Petitioner 
had slightly less than six years in Brazil, from June 2009 to May 2015, to accumulate five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty ofHR management. The Petitioner claimed 
"more than 10 years of experience in the field," but she did not document that much experience. The 
Petitioner's resume lists the following periods of employment in Brazil, corroborated by employers' 
letters: 
• HR Trainee and Analyst, 2/5/2007-8/5/2010 (42 months); 
• Traffic Psychologist, 8/9/2010-3/2/2012 (less than 19 months); and 
• HR Analyst, 10/15/2012-8/25/2014 (over 22 months). 
The above periods of employment add up to about six years and nine months, but they do not amount 
to six years and nine months of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty of HR 
management in which the Petitioner seeks employment. 
1 Sec also Poursina v. USCJS, 936F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in na ture). 
2 
The Petitioner has not shown that her work as a traffic psychologist at a psychology clinic from 2010 
to 2012 was in the specialty of HR management. Rather, her employer's letter indicates the Petitioner 
"performed psychological evaluation ... in order to analyze the cognitive capacity, attention deficit 
and psychomotricity of first-time applicants, renewal and traffic instructors." 2 
Even if the Petitioner had shown that her work at the psychology clinic constitutes experience in the 
specialty of HR management, she has not documented at least five years of post-baccalaureate 
experience. The Petitioner's first two years and four months of employment, from February 2007 to 
June 2009, predate completion of her degree and therefore this experience was not post-baccalaureate. 
The Petitioner has documented only about four years and five months of post-baccalaureate 
employment experience, fromJune2009to March2012 and fromOctober2012 to August 2014. Only 
about three years of that post-baccalaureate experience was demonstrably in HR rather than 
psychology. The Petitioner has not established the minimum of five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
This detennination, by itself, precludes approval of the petition. But because the Director's decision 
did not address this issue, we will also discuss the stated grounds for denial of the petition below. 
III. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
The issue before us on appealis whetherthe Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement 
of a job off er, and thus a labor ce1iification, would be in the national interest. 
The first Dhanasar 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. See MatterofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
When she filed the petition, the Petitioner stated that her company "will participate in HR consulting 
services for small and medium sized enterprises" and "develop a strategy for the Recruitment and 
Selection sector." The Petitioner asserted that her proposed endeavor is of national importance 
because"[ e ]xperienced HR professionals ... are vital to the overall growth and development of small 
businesses in the U.S.," which makeup "99.9% of all United States Businesses." 
The Director issued a notice of intentto deny the petition, statingthatthe Petitioner had not established 
that her proposed endeavor has the broad implications described in Dhanasar. In response, the 
Petitioner stated that her "proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers," 
because her business plan projects a staff of 12 employees by the fifth year. The Petitioner also states 
that she "will ... help other businesses hire more employees," by "ensur[ing] that businesses are able 
to fill their vacant positions" and "improv[ing] employee retention." The Petitioner submitted articles 
about the HR field, small businesses, labor shortages, and related topics. 
2 The Petitioner submitted information explaining how a degree in psychology can be helpful in the HR field. The 
relevance of a psychology degree to HR management, however, does not establish thatpsychology and HR management 
are the same "specialty"as 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)requires. 
3 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. An 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889-890. 
General infmmation about the Petitioner's occupation and statistics about small businesses and labor 
shmiages does not establish the national impmiance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
For instance, the Petitioner's evidence indicates that there are more than 30 million small businesses 
in the United States, but only a few of those businesses would be clients of the Petitioner's company. 
The record indicates there are about 300,000 HR managers in the United States. Their aggregate 
impact does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
We must consider the proportional impact of the Petitioner's work in particular. By comparison, in 
Dhanasar we acknowledged the petitioner's intention to teach engineering classes, but we concluded 
that the petitioner had not shown that his teaching work would "impact the field ... more broadly." 
Id. at 893. 
Ultimately, the issue is not whether the Petitioner's clients would benefit from her services. The issue 
is whether the proposed endeavor has "broader implications" with "substantial positive economic 
effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 889-90. Limited local effects may be of great benefit to 
the Petitioner's own clients, but still lack national importance. For example, the Petitioner asserted 
that "the impact she will have on work culture and employee satisfaction will continue to shift how 
companies perceive their actions," but the Petitioner did not show how her work will have this effect 
outside of the limited number of companies that engage her services. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner did not "expllain and demonstrate how [her] 
proposed endeavor will extend beyond the organization and its clients to impact the industry or field 
more broadly." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she had established that her proposed endeavor "will have a 
direct, critical effect on the Human Resources Industry by revolutionizing how businesses handle 
internal affairs, the interview process, and retention," because her "background in psychology allows 
her to deeply understand human behaviors and interactions." The Petitioner had previously submitted 
evidence indicating that it is not unusual for HR managers to have a background in psychology. For 
instance, she had submitted a printout from Indeed.com entitled '"FAQ: Human Resources Jobs With 
a Psychology Degree." The suitability of the Petitioner's degree for the proposed endeavor would be 
considered in the context of the second Dhanasar prong, concerning whether she is well-positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner's business plan specifies that the Petitioner is not proposing practices or policies that 
can be widely implemented by a large number of businesses. Rather, her company "will provide a set 
of comprehensive services specifically adapted to each client's specific business needs." Individually 
tailored services may help the Petitioner to serve the specific needs of each client, but, by nature, they 
do not represent broadly-applicable measures that a wide range of employers can readily adopt. Also, 
4 
the Petitioner has not explained how her methods would be disseminated so widely that they would 
have a nationally significant economic impact. 
The Petitioner notes that USCIS has updated its guidance for entrepreneurs seeking the national 
interest waiver. The Petitioner does not quote from this guidance. The updated policy does not 
establish a different evidentiary standard for entrepreneurs. Rather, it acknowledges that "[t]here may 
be unique aspects of evidence submitted by an entrepreneurial petitioner," which adjudicators should 
take into account while still adhering to the Dhanasar framework. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Petitioner states that USCIS did not give enough weight to an "Expert Letter" from a professor at 
I I university. USC IS may rely on such letters in its discretion, but USC IS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). The letter does 
not introduce new facts into the record; rather, the professor described record evidence and concluded 
that the Petitioner is eligible for the national interest waiver. The discussion of national importance 
includes general, industry-wide statistics, descriptions of HR procedures, and an overview of the 
proposed endeavor, without explaining how the benefit from the Petitioner's work would extend 
beyond her own clients to reach national importance and meet the requirements of the first Dhanasar 
prong. 
The Petitioner asserts that her business plan outlined the economic benefit from her proposed 
endeavor. In terms of job creation, the Petitioner's business plan cites "national job multipliers 
published by the Econom[ic] Policy Institute" (EPI), indicating that "100 direct jobs in the 
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services ... generate a total of 207 .6 indirect jobs." 
Citing these figures, the business plan states: "Since [the Petitioner] will create 12 direct jobs by the 
end of 2026/27, the total indirect jobs ... would reach 24." Separately from the EPI figures, the 
business plan indicates that the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS TT) multipliers for 
"Management consulting services" in Florida project "a final-demand impact in employment, 
equivalent to 233 jobs in Year 7." The Petitioner did not submit the multiplier evidence itself or show 
that her proposed endeavor falls under the categories named. The Petitioner did not address or explain 
the significant discrepancy between the EPI and RIMS II figures. Also, modeled projections of 
indirect jobs do not show that the proposed endeavor itself "has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers" as the Petitioner asserts, because the indirect jobs would be outside the Petitioner's company. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the required "national importance" element of the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. We therefore conclude as a matter of discretion that she has not 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver. Also, as noted above, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. Because these issues determine the 
outcome of the Petitioner's appeal, we reserve the appellate arguments regarding the remaining issue 
of the thirdDhanasarprong. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
5 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6