dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2024 In Re: 34759020 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing manager, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that her proposed endeavor is of national importance. The matter is now before us on appeal 
pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) 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. A U.S. 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. 
Profession is defined as one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. 1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
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 10l(a)(32) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, a determination the record supports. 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. Based on our de novo review 
of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor under the first prong. Specifically, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient 
evidence regarding the substantive nature of her proposed endeavor such that she can establish that it 
meets the requirements of the first Dhanasar prong. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (T-140), in December 2018. 
She indicated that her occupation was marketing manager and that she planned, directed, or 
coordinated policies and programs such as determining the demand for products and services. In a 
professional plan and statement initially submitted with the petition, the Petitioner asserted that she 
planned to continue working with American institutions that required her knowledge and expertise. 
She stated that she intended to continue designing marketing strategies, maintaining relationships to 
facilitate company growth, and identifying business development opportunities in order to help U.S. 
business improve their strategies and practices. She referred to her 14 years of professional experience 
as well as her academic qualifications. In a response to a request for evidence (RFE) from the Director, 
the Petitioner submitted an additional professional plan and statement in May 2021. She reiterated 
that her proposed endeavor was to continue working as a marketing manager to provide strategic 
guidance and direction in marketing, advertising, business management, and marketing analysis. The 
Petitioner contended that her endeavor would help U.S. companies seize new market and investment 
opportunities because marketing was the most critical indicator of its business capability. She 
elaborated that she could assist companies adapt to a larger virtual model in light of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Her statement referred to her company operating on both a local and global level. The 
record also includes the Petitioner's resume, academic diplomas, letters from employers, professional 
certificates, and industry reports and articles. 
2 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had 
substantial merit, and that she well-positioned to advance it, she had not established that the reach of 
her proposed endeavor extended beyond the single, individual company that employed her. The 
Director additionally noted that the Petitioner's endeavor appeared to consist of continuing to work at 
her current employer as a marketing and program manager, a position she began after she filed the 
initial petition. The Director found that the Petitioner had made other changes to her professional 
plans that represented material changes from her initial filing, including plans to help U.S. companies 
adapt to changes stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) ("New facts after the filing date cannot establish eligibility as of the priority 
date"); Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (noting a petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements). Finally, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that she has established eligibility for the national interest waiver 
under all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In support of her argument that she has submitted 
sufficient evidence of her proposed endeavor's national importance, she contends that the Director did 
not give due regard to her submitted resume, professional plan, evidence of work in the field, letters 
of recommendation, and industry reports and articles "demonstrating the national importance of the 
[Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." The Petitioner further argues that she will be addressing an 
industry shortage of marketing and business professionals in the United States. She asserts that she 
has shown clear projections in her field-related projects of the benefits to the national economy, the 
domestic job market, other U.S. organizations, and U.S. citizens at large. Additionally, the Petitioner 
claims that her work with her current employer in I I with the African-American 
community addresses racial disparities in in unemployment. 
The Applicant also argues generally that the Director did not apply proper standard of proof and 
instead erroneously imposed a stricter standard. However, she did not elaborate this argument or 
specify what improper standard the Director applied in her case. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual proposes to undertake. The term "endeavor" is more specific than the general occupation; 
a petitioner should offer details not only as to what the occupation normally involves, but what types 
of work the person proposes to undertake specifically within that occupation. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Simply being employed m an 
occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the purposes of these proceedings. Id. 
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. As an initial matter, as we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner's subsequent submissions from her initial filing were materially 
changes, we will only evaluate evidence submitted with the initial petition. Although she provided 
information about her professional interests, background, and her current role, the Petitioner has not 
clearly explained her endeavor beyond generally continuing her career in the United States. In the 
initial petition, she stated that she would help U.S. companies by providing strategic guidance and 
direction in marketing, advertising, business management, and marketing analysis. But aside from 
mentioning her current employment in the RFE and on appeal, she did not elaborate on whether she 
3 
would carry out her endeavor by starting her own company, as a consultant to other companies, or as 
an employee of a company. 3 She has not, for example, identified specific clients, partners, or 
employers with whom she would engage in this work. The Petitioner has also not provided sufficient 
details about her intended projects, such as an operational plan, a timeline, or quantifiable business 
metrics. As a result of this lack of detail and specificity, we are unable to conclude that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor has national importance. 
It is a petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence to demonstrate eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec.at 376. A petitioner must also support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. Id. As the Petitioner has not done so here, she has 
not sufficiently established that her proposed endeavor in the United States will have national 
importance under the first Dhanasar prong. 
Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the remaining eligibility requirements for the requested national interest waiver. 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 ofL-A-C- , 
26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 To the extent the Petitioner's endeavor involves her current employer, the record reflects that she was not working with 
this employer until after she filed the petition; thus she cannot establish eligibility with these facts. 
4