dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering And Risk Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 16, 2024 In Re: 31144792 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that 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. 
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. If 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 "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 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 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Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 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 found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue to be determined 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. For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
With respect to her proposed endeavor, the Petitioner indicated that she planned to work "in industrial 
engineering and occupational risk management and innovation, with a focus in the areas of quality, 
environmental management, occupational health and safety, and innovative business management 
systems." She asserted that she intended "to implement and create I I a business consulting 
firm that will provide affordable services to small and medium-sized businesses in the United States, 
improve the quality of life at work for American workers, provide safer work environments, and improve 
management of environmental impacts that reduce pollution." The Petitioner further stated: 
I will be able to help companies that consult with my company in a comprehensive way, 
providing high-level business advisory services, which will allow small and medium­
sized companies to optimize their organizational structure, reduce their environmental 
impacts, reduce the absenteeism of [their] workers, thus guaranteeing to reach [their] 
objectives, providing a solid structure so that they can access a broader portfolio of 
customers in tune with the demand of the large companies and increasing their market 
share and the American business sales results .... 
She also noted that ____ will provide the following services: 
1. Design and formulation of strategic planning 
2. Design of operation models by processes 
3. Design of institutional risk maps 
4. Design of business management systems 
5. Preparation of environmental management plans to mitigate environmental impacts, 
calculation of the carbon footprint 
6. Identification of risks for the prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses 
7. Visits to industrial processes and inspections planned for companies with high-risk 
activities such as work at heights, dangerous energies, confined spaces, ionizing radiation 
8. Internal audit services for small and medium-sized companies 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that her undertaking stands to offer "job opportumt1es to 
professionals with profiles ofjunior and senior consultants according to growth, it is expected that the 
first 3 years there will be at least 20 vacancies." This job vacancies projection, however, is not 
supported by details showing its basis or an adequate explanation of how it will be achieved. 
2 
The record includes information about occupational health, industrial engineers, the burden of poor 
working conditions, the economic benefits of health and safety management, occupational health and 
safety specialists and technicians, Florida Opportunity Zones, the state of small business in the United 
States, U.S. gross domestic product, small businesses as contributors to U.S. economic activity, top 
reasons for startup failure, small business concerns over navigating climate action, and practices for 
improving safety and health through supply chains. In addition, the Petitioner provided articles 
discussing recommended practices and health programs, the demand for safety professionals in the 
United States, the ways small businesses contribute to job creation and economic growth, bankruptcy's 
effect on U.S. consumers, the likelihood of a U.S. recession, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, and factors contributing to small business failure. She also submitted information 
about White House initiatives relating to protecting worker health and safety, investing in small 
businesses, clean manufacturing, and protecting workers and communities from extreme heat. 
We agree with the Director that the submitted documentation establishes the Petitioner's endeavor has 
substantial merit. In determining national importance, however, the relevant question is not the overall 
importance of the industry in which the individual will work or the value of small businesses in 
general; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still demonstrate the potential 
prospective impact of her specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also provided letters of support from J-A-P-M-, L-M-C-F-, L-E-O-T-, A-M-R-B-, N­
T-, P-J-T-, G-E-R-D-, and M-B-A-P- discussing her industrial engineering knowledge, environmental 
and occupational risk management capabilities, and business experience. In addition, the Petitioner 
presented letters from J-F-G-L-, F-G-, M-S-, and O-D- reflecting interest in utilizing her company's 
consulting services. The Petitioner's skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field, as well as interest 
from potential customers, relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the 
focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor that she proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s first 
prong. The letters from Petitioner's colleagues and prospective clients do not contain sufficient 
information and explanation, nor does the record include adequate corroborating evidence, to show 
that her specific proposed work offers broader implications in her field or substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her undertaking "stands to have a potential prospective impact on the broader field 
or otherwise have implications rising to the level of national importance." In addition, the Director 
indicated that the Petitioner had not shown "that the area where her company will operate is 
economically depressed, that it would employ a significant population of workers in the area, [or] that 
the proposed endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit." 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that "hiring 20 U.S. workers is more than enough to meet the 
plain language of the criterion when coupled with the ample projection-based evidence provided in the 
record with respect to the likelihood of said employment of U.S. workers." The Petitioner, however, does 
not identify this "ample projection-based evidence" in the record. Nor does she adequately elaborate on 
her hiring projection or provide evidence supporting the need for the 20 employees. Unsupported 
3 
assertions and speculation have no evidentiary value and are insufficient to establish a filing party has 
satisfied their burden of proof. See Matter ofMariscal -Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022). 
The Petitioner further contends that her proposed endeavor "is aligned with three issues of vital 
importance to the U.S. government: supporting the growth development of small and medium-sized 
enterprises, reducing the environmental impacts caused by the business sector, and protecting the health 
and safety of American workers." She asserts that her undertaking stands "to help SMEs identify their 
environmental impacts and reduce them" and to assist "SMEs to develop safer work environments 
allowing them to improve the quality of life of their workers, reduce absenteeism and increase 
productivity and economic benefits for their businesses." 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that her proposed endeavor would 
operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
substantiate such claims. Furthermore, while any basic economic activity has the potential to 
positively affect the economy to some degree, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the potential 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to 
generate substantial positive economic effects in the region where her company will operate or in other 
parts of the United States. 
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. 
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. While the 
Petitioner's statements reflect her intention to provide advisory services to her company's clients, she 
has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. 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 his field more broadly. Id. at 893 . Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that her proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her company and its future clientele 
to impact her industry; the fields of industrial engineering, environmental management, or occupational 
health and safety; or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Specifically, she has not demonstrated that her company's future staffing levels and 
business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or any other region of the 
United States. The Petitioner has not presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
4 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding 
her eligibility under the third prong outlined in Dhanasar. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
that she bas not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5