dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 31, 2024 InRe : 31474211 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an attorney, 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 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 that although the Petitioner 
qualified for the EB-2 visa classification as an advanced degree professional, she had not established 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. The Director also dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent 
combined motions to reopen and reconsider the adverse decision upon determination that the motion 
did not meet the applicable regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner now appeals the dismissal of her combined motions. She states that the Director erred 
by finding new facts and evidence insufficient to reopen and reexamine the denial and reasserts 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
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 I&N Dec. 53 7, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A. Motion Requirements 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that (1) the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) policy and (2) 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate that they 
qualify for the underlying EB-2 immigrant visa classification, as either an advanced degree 
professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this 
classification requires an individual to have a job offer by a U.S. employer, the petitioner must also 
show that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement and, thus, of a labor 
certification "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: 
• 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. 
The first 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. To determine whether 
they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not 
limited to their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model 
or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest 
of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. at 890. 
The third prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. In performing 
this analysis, we may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the individual's 
qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for them to secure a job offer 
or to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are 
available, the United States would still benefit from their contributions; and whether the national 
interest in their contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. 
In each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, 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. 
Id. at 890-91. 2 
1 See 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 is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for a detailed discussion of these three prongs. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that the Director erred by dismissing her 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 3 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the 
motion was properly dismissed. 
In denying the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Petition for Alien Workers (Form 1-140), the Director noted 
that because some of the foreign language documents the Petitioner submitted were not accompanied 
by full certified English translations they could not be considered as evidence. The Director also 
declined to consider several documents created after the Form 1-140 filing in 2019, stating generally 
that a petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time of filing and must not 
thereafter make material changes to the petition to conform to USCIS requirements. The Director 
evaluated the remaining evidence, observing that it included multiple copies of the same documents, 
and concluded that it was not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of starting 
a conciliation and mediation company ______________________ 
_______ 4 in Florida had national importance, that she was well-positioned to advance it, 
and that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirement of a job offer 
and, thus, of a labor certification in her case. 
In support of her combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submitted a brief, with 
some of the previously provided evidence, a professional plan and statement (professional plan), an 
updated business plan, and a list of legal authorities addressing various issues, including motion 
requirements, reinstatement of removal, federal rules of civil procedure, criminal law, waivers of 
inadmissibility, discretionary relief, and national interest waiver criteria. 
The Petitioner contended that, contrary to the Director's determination, she had satisfied the national 
importance requirement "through the importance of her proposed endeavor and an impact broad 
enough to improve [the U.S.] economy, improve wages and working conditions for [U.S.] workers, 
health care, affordable housing, the environment and government agency through an intermediation 
using her methodology in Alternative Resolution." She further asserted that her skills and abilities 
were "of value for national importance" and indicated that a national interest waiver should have been 
granted based on the importance of her profession, her foreign qualifications, and the needs of the 
United States. The Petitioner further stated that the Director also erred in finding she was not well­
positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, because she had provided evidence of her education, 
professional qualifications, work experience, awards, and licenses. As new evidence on motion, the 
3 The Petitioner did not appeal the denial of the underlying Form 1-140, Petition for Alien Workers. Although some of her 
allegations of errors concern the Form 1-140 denial, that matter is beyond the scope of our review of the Director's dismissal 
of her subsequent motion. 
4 The Petitioner indicated that the project would provide her clients (e.g., public or private companies and industries, 
individuals, executive departments, and federal and state governments) with what they need to efficiently and reliably 
solve problems, and that this would contribute to improving legal and business critical situations, achieving excellent 
results for the economy, offering the best solutions for U.S. communities, and providing special benefits for under-qualified 
workers, children, and social programs. She indicated that her project would be of interest to customers, users, investors, 
entities, and individuals who want to resolve conflicts and find alternative solutions through a modern system (face-to­
face, or through web-based meetings) and the United States would benefit from her ability to lead in different situations 
and teach parties different ways to solve problems. 
3 
Petitioner offered a professional plan and an updated business plan, stating that her "past record of 
success in the same field may be used to demonstrate that the [United States] will benefit from [her] 
contributions that may lead to the potential creation ofjobs." She also referenced previously submitted 
recommendation letters from former employers, co-workers, and business owners attesting to her 
excellent reputation and mediation skills. Lastly, the Petitioner asserted that the Director erred by 
finding the evidence inadequate to show that waiving a job offer requirement in her case would be 
beneficial to the United States, because "[aa ]ltemative resolutions has [sic] significant implications for 
U.S. National Security and competitiveness in Public Administration," and her "key role" in this field 
indicates that her work is useful and has substantial value that would benefit the United States even 
assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish proper cause to reopen the Form I-140 
denial because she had not presented sufficient new facts supported by evidence. In reaching this 
conclusion, the Director determined that the new evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner met 
the national interest waiver criteria under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
Regarding the endeavor's national importance, the Director considered the Petitioner's professional 
plan and her updated business plan but concluded that neither was sufficient to establish she met this 
requirement. The Director pointed out that pursuant to Dhanasar, in determining whether a proposed 
endeavor has national importance USCIS focuses on the nature of the proposed endeavor (what the 
petitioner will be specifically doing), and the Petitioner's professional and business plans referred to 
various reports and statistics and broader topics related to the industry and occupation rather than her 
specific undertaking. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that her proposed 
endeavor would have implications beyond her own company and its employees and clients to impact 
the field, industry, or economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The 
Director further explained that while the Petitioner's business plan included forecasts of her mediation 
company's future projects, sales, and staffing levels, she did not offer corroborating evidence to 
demonstrate the basis for the projections and did not elucidate how they would be realized. The 
Director thus determined that the Petitioner did not show her work as a mediator would offer the region 
or its population a substantial positive economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, 
investment, or related tax revenue contemplated by Dhanasar. The Director concluded that the 
evidence submitted by the Petitioner was insufficient to establish that providing services to her clients 
would result in substantial positive economic effects or impact the field of mediation or society at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's education, training, experience, professional credentials, 
and achievements, but again explained that those factors alone were not sufficient to demonstrate that 
she was well-positioned to advance the endeavor, and the record did not show that her work in the 
mediation field served as an impetus for progress in that field, affected the industry or occupation in 
some way, generated positive discourse in the broader community, or constituted a track record of 
success or progress. The Director further noted that the record also did not indicate any interest in the 
Petitioner's services from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals, and did not reflect a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to satisfy 
4 
Dhanasar 's second prong. 
The Director also considered the Petitioner's statements concerning the potential benefits of her 
mediation services to the United States but found that she had not shown that there was an urgent 
national interest in her contributions, or that her contributions would be of such value that, overall, 
they would benefit the nation even if other qualified U.S. workers were available. Thus, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the Dhanasar 's third prong. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
Although the Petitioner referred to administrative and court decisions in the brief accompanying her 
motion, she did not explain how they specifically applied to the facts and issues of her case. The 
Director acknowledged that the Petitioner disagreed with the denial of her Form 1-140 but determined 
that she did not establish that the denial was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy, 
or that it was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time, such that it would warrant 
reconsideration. 
C. The Petitioner's Assertions on Appeal 
On appeal, the Petitioner references previously provided documentation and case law citations. She 
also submits evidence that in the period from August to October 2023 she completed additional 
mediation training and was certified to serve as a mediator in the Florida's Fifth Judicial Circuit, and 
that in 2021, 2022, and 2023 she received correspondence from the White House thanking her for her 
outreach on immigration and her "interest in lending [her] time and talents to [the] Administration." 
The Petitioner first asserts that the Director improperly found she was ineligible for the benefit sought 
at the time of filing. We note, however, that the Director's decision on the Petitioner's motion does 
not contain such a finding. Rather, the Director indicated only that the previously provided evidence 
that the Petitioner registered her company in November 2022, after she filed her Form 1-140, would 
not be considered, and did not make any findings concerning the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of 
filing. 5 The Petitioner's assertion, therefore, is not supported by the record and we are unable to 
meaningfully address it, especially that she does not explain how the fact that she registered her 
company I I in Florida would have been material to her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director erred in concluding that she did not present new facts 
and evidence to establish a proper cause for reopening of her denied Form 1-140. However, the record 
reflects that the Director explained why the new evidence, which consisted of the Petitioner's 
professional plan and her updated business plan, was insufficient to demonstrate that she met the 
national interest waiver criteria and, consequently, to overcome the basis for the denial. See Matter of 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change 
the outcome). As the Petitioner does not point to any specific errors in the Director's analysis of the 
5 When addressing this evidence in the Form 1-140 denial, the Director similarly stated that "USCIS cannot consider any 
evidence of the [Petitioner's] eligibility after filing Form 1-140" but did not conclude that she was ineligible for the benefit 
sought at the time of filing as a result. 
5 
new evidence or the ultimate determination of its insufficiency to overcome the reasons for the Form 
I-140 denial, she has not demonstrated that the dismissal of her motion to reopen was improper. 
Next, the Petitioner states that the Director erred by failing to recognize that alternative resolution 
represents broadly applicable measures that a wide range of businesses can readily adopt and that her 
proposed endeavor therefore has national importance. However, the Director explained in both the I-
140 denial and the motion decision that in determining whether an endeavor has national importance, 
we focus on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake, and evidence of the 
"potential prospective impact" of the individual's work, rather than the importance of an industry, 
field, or profession in general. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Accordingly, while we recognize 
that alternative dispute resolution is an important field and mediators provide valuable services to help 
prevent and resolve a broad spectrum of internal and external conflicts, the Petitioner does not point 
to any evidence that might show the prospective broad impact of her specific endeavor in the field of 
mediation and arbitration. Her general statements on appeal that her proposed endeavor "can help 
alleviate the backlog of cases in immigration courts" and that "Alternative Resolution can give 
applicants and organizations a greater sense of control and participation in the decision-making, 
leading to more satisfactory outcomes that better address the underlying interests and concerns of the 
parties involved," are not sufficient to establish the requisite national importance of her specific 
proposed endeavor. 
Lastly, the Petitioner states that the Director erred in finding that she did not establish the decision to 
deny her Form I-140 was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time, without providing 
a detailed explanation why the information about the projected economic impact of her proposed 
endeavor was insufficient. She references previously provided recommendation letters as an example 
of probative evidence and avers that the Director failed to consider her successful career as an 
important aspect of her eligibility. 
As discussed above, however, the Director did explain the evidentiary deficiencies as they relate to 
the national waiver criteria. 6 Furthermore, we cannot give the recommendation letters significant 
weight with respect to Dhanasar's first prong, as they do not address the Petitioner's proposed 
conciliation and mediation project in Florida. For example, two public officials from Brazil attest to 
the Petitioner's emotional intelligence, legal knowledge, experience, resourcefulness, and 
accomplishments as a lawyer and mediator. The Petitioner's former employers and clients confirm 
that she has notable experience in mediation, conciliation and arbitration, and that she carried out her 
legal obligations as an attorney with celerity and technical expertise well above the average. Although 
the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience are relevant to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national," they are not 
probative of whether the endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has the requisite national 
importance. Here, none of the letters identify or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner 
will perform within her prospective endeavor in the United States. As such, they are not probative of 
the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong, and the Director correctly determined that 
the motion to reconsider did not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
6 We note that so long as USCIS gives a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not 
be required to specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for USCIS to address every piece of 
evidence the petitioner presented. Ren v. USC1S, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023). 
6 
We acknowledge the submission of additional evidence on appeal. However, neither the Petitioner's 
certification to serve as a mediator in Florida, nor her correspondence exchanges on unrelated topics 
with the White House are sufficient to show national importance of her specific endeavor. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that her 
endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance. Specifically, she has not 
shown that her proposed conciliation and mediation services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her 
clients to affect the field of alternative dispute resolution more broadly. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
893. She also has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects 
for the United States. Id. at 890. Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that her proposed 
work satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
Because she is ineligible for the national interest waiver on this basis alone, we need not address at 
this time whether her endeavor meets the "substantial merit" requirement of the Dhanasar 's first 
prong. We also decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding her 
eligibility under the second and third prongs, as evaluating her eligibility under those prongs at this 
time would not change the outcome. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision); 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 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the additional evidence she submitted in support of her 
motion to reopen established new facts sufficient to warrant reopening of the proceedings and she did 
not show that the denial of her Form 1-140 was in error as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy, or that it 
was otherwise incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time. The Director therefore 
properly determined that the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider did not satisfy the 
requirements under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)-(3). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7