dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30627895 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in human resources, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks anational 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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish she merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 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 apreponderance 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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 U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor 's degree.1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A U.S. bachelor 's degree or a foreign equivalent 
degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's 
degree. Id. 
1 Profession shall include, but not be limited to, architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then 
establish eligibility for 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 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as 
matter of discretion,2 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. 
Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to establish ahuman resources consulting business in the United States having 
previously worked in human resources in Brazil. 
The Director's decision did not indicate whether the Petitioner established her eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 immigrant classification. Upon de nova review, the record shows that the Petitioner 
is eligible for the underlying classification as an advanced degree professional.3 
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner is eligible or otherwise merits a waiver of the 
classification's job offer requirement. The Director concluded the Petitioner did not establish that a 
waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus alabor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Director found that while the Petitioner demonstrated the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
she did not establish that the proposed endeavor is of national importance, as required by the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The Director further found that although the Petitioner 
established that she is well positioned to undertake the endeavor under Dhanasar 's second prong, she 
did not establish that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements 
of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification under Dhanasar 's third prong. Upon de nova review, 
the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the labor certification would be in the national 
interest.4 
The first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, substantial merit and national importance, 
focuses on the specific endeavor that a petitioner proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may 
be demonstrated in arange of areas, such as business, entrepreneurial ism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) Uoining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
Circuit Court in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver 
to be discretionary in nature). 
3 To demonstrate she is an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner submitted her diploma, her academic transcript, an 
academic evaluation, and letters of employment and recommendation. The record demonstrates that she holds the foreign 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by more than five years of progressive experience in her specialty. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3). 
4 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
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." Id. at 889. 
The Petitioner proposes to establish a human resources consulting business in Florida. As explained 
in the business plan, the Petitioner and her husband incorporated the business in Florida with plans for 
its main office to be in a historically underutilized business community with plans for future offices 
in New York and California. The business would focus on reducing operational costs for companies 
through increased employee retention and engagement. To do this, the business would help companies 
monitor and improve their employee career development, wellness, productivity, experience, 
management engagement, and work culture. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. 
Even though the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond her business 
and its clients to impact the field more broadly. The Director further found that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate her endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or offer substantial positive 
economic effects. Therefore, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her 
endeavor is of national importance and did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Upon 
de nova review, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance element of Dhanasar's first prong, as discussed below. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of proof ... , 
instead imposing a stricter standard, and erroneously applied the law .... " (emphasis omitted). The 
Petitioner further argues that the Director "did not give due regard" to the evidence submitted, 
specifically the Petitioner's resume outlining her experience; the business plan describing her 
credentials and the projected benefits she offers the United States; letters of recommendation; and 
industry reports and articles showing the national importance of the proposed endeavor and the 
shortage of professionals in her field. 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the 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.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989). Here, the Director properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence 
to evaluate the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The Petitioner stresses on appeal her eighteen years of professional experience and her educational 
credentials to argue that "[h]]er qualifications and experience have given her a unique perspective in 
the field of recruitments, which has allowed her the opportunity to recognize the traits that make up 
successful and unsuccessful businesses due to their employees." She maintains that her "professional 
record mirrors how her proposed work offers innovations and improvements of broad implications on 
the United States." However, the Petitioner's reliance on her academic credentials and professional 
experience to establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor is misplaced. Her academic 
credentials and professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
"shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
3 
Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake 
has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the 
"potential prospective impact" of her work. Id. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they would not impact the field more broadly. Id. at 893. Similarly, the 
record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the field 
of human resources, as contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance 
for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id. The evidence 
does not suggest that the Petitioner's human resources consulting business would impact the field 
more broadly. 
The Petitioner then argues that her proposed endeavor has national importance, particularly because it 
will "generate substantial ripple effects upon key commercial and business activities on behalf of the 
United States" and would be "a vital aspect of U.S. companies' operations and sales, and business 
functions of U.S. companies." She maintains that her endeavor would contribute "to a revenue­
enhanced business ecosystem, and an enriched, productivity-centered economy." Her business will 
have broader implications by helping companies with their financial gains which will "help the [United 
States] stay competitive by bringing competitive services, helping develop the country, and producing 
income for the U.S. economy." She maintains that her business' services will extend beyond her 
business because she will provide "services in a very niche field of which not many have the 
knowledge and expertise." With her "strategic approach to business and sales", she maintains that her 
business would provide companies "with the proper tools and resources to improve wages, working 
conditions, and workforce productivity. This will translate to an increase in national business 
productivity, which will offer substantial benefits to the U.S. economy." The Petitioner asserts "her 
proposed endeavor ... is of national importance, when considered with respect to the extent that a 
professional of her level of expertise can contribute to the improvement of nation-wide concerns, 
regardless of a labor certification." 
The Petitioner argues that her business plan "describes her detailed plan for creating jobs through 
managing and developing her business in the [United States] through her unique expertise and skills." 
As owner, she maintains her "firm will support human resources processes in U.S. corporations with 
special attention to retention and engagement." ( emphasis omitted). She explains that she would 
recruit, interview, hire, and train staff and personnel. In addition, she would collaborate "with 
executive leadership to define the organization's long-te1m mission and goals" in order to provide 
"guidance and leadership to the human management team." Her brief details the business' human 
resources services stressing it "will be focused on small and medium sized companies .... " 
The record includes the Petitioner's statement and a business plan which indicate her proposed 
endeavor has national importance based on potential economic benefits to underutilized business areas 
of Florida and to the United States. The Petitioner states her business would generate jobs for U.S. 
workers in these underutilized areas, improve wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, help 
the local community attract investments to the region, and encourage economic development. The 
Petitioner asserts that her entrepreneurial endeavor is particularly important given its role in the U.S. 
4 
recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The business plan also explains the Petitioner's experience 
and investment in the business; its intended location and expansion plans; market overview of the 
human resources industry; benefits of human resources industry for U.S. businesses; the business' 
services of retention planning and management consultancy, recruitment, and career advice and 
engagement monitoring; and the business' projected marketing strategy, staffing, and financial 
calculations. 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the potential prospective impact, including 
the asserted economic benefits to the United States and the areas it intends to serve. The growth and 
importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the 
Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating independent and objective 
evidence to support her claims that her business' activities stand to provide substantial economic 
benefits to the underuti Iized Florida business communities or the United States. Statements and claims 
alone are not sufficient to demonstrate her endeavor has the potential to provide economic benefits to 
the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Also, without sufficient documentary 
evidence that her proposed job duties as the owner of her human resources consulting business would 
impact the human resources field more broadly, rather than benefiting her business and her clients, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed endeavor is of 
national importance. 
For instance, the business plan projects that in five years the business will hire 76 direct employees, 
pay wages of just over $14.5 million, and pay over $2.3 million in taxes. However, the record does 
not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how 
these projections will be realized. The Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence 
demonstrating that her business' future staffing levels and business activities stand to provide 
substantial economic benefits to the United States and the communities in the states it will serve. 
While the Petitioner expresses her desire to contribute to the United States and its underutilized 
business areas, she has not established with specific, probative evidence that her endeavor has the 
potential to have broader implications in her field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or 
other substantial positive economic effects in an economically underutilized business areas of Florida 
or the United States. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See id. Even if we were to assume everything the Petitioner claims will happen, the record 
lacks evidence showing that creating 76 direct jobs, paying wages of just over $14.5 million, and 
paying over $2.3 million in taxes over a five-year period rises to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner further claims on appeal that the national importance of her proposed endeavor is 
evidenced in industry reports and articles. She asserts that the articles show the importance of 
"business development professionals" and their role "in every type of business." She maintains that 
the articles show her proposed endeavor's importance based on "its economic implications - which 
very much affect nation-wide activities and business productivity." She claims her endeavor will 
impact nationally important matters and the national economy by helping small and medium sized 
U.S. companies succeed, driving economic advantage through innovation, and stimulating the job 
market through job creation. However, the Petitioner's arguments relate to "business development 
professionals," instead of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of establishing a human resources 
services business. 
5 
The record does include industry reports and articles that relate to becoming a top executive, global 
human capital trends, benefits of human resources industry, workforce strategies of successful 
businesses, employee well-being and engagement following COVID-19 pandemic, transformation of 
human resources field, entrepreneur statistics, economic benefits of immigrant entrepreneurs, 
immigration reform, and the economic benefits of immigrants and entrepreneurship. We recognize 
the importance of the human resources field and related careers, and the significant contributions from 
immigrants who have become successful entrepreneurs; however, merely working in the human 
resources field or starting a human resources consulting business is insufficient to establish the 
national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead of focusing on the importance of an industry 
or the need for workers in a specific industry, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. 
In Dhanasar, we 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. The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact 
or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond 
her business and her future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. Beyond general assertions, she has not 
demonstrated that the work she proposes to undertake as the owner of her proposed human resources 
consulting business offers the claimed innovations that contribute to advancements in her industry or 
otherwise has broader implications for her field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims 
depend on numerous factors, and the Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie 
between her proposed human resources consulting work and the claimed potential economic benefits. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner does not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, she has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, therefore we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and 
appellate arguments regarding the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar framework. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (noting 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). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6