dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing And Communication

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 28092830 Date: OCT. 2, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a vice president of marketing and communication, 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. 
§ 1153(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 l&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. 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 l&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 Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding 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 initially indicated that since 2019 she has been 
serving as the "Vice President of Marketing and Communication" for I I a "company 
that provides automation solutions for apparel and related 'soft-goods' industries."2 She stated that her 
"role involves global marketing leadership for industry-leading software, automation solutions, and 
services. On a daily basis, I work with product management and global sales and marketing leaders, and 
I network with distributors in over 120 countries." The Petitioner further explained that her work involves 
"highlighting the products and services! loffers"; creating "presentations and webinars to inform 
companies about high tech advances to increase their production and overall growth"; "leveraging current 
innovations within the context of existing issues for our customers across the fashion, textile, and apparel 
industries"; establishing "a key set of performance indicators to provide consistent reporting based on the 
marketing team's rollout of various plans"; supporting "customers to be successful in digital 
transformation"; and acting as company "spokesperson." 
Regarding her work during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Petitioner presented a March 2021 letter of 
support from K-N-, Chief Strategy and Digital Officer,! Iindicating that he and the 
Petitioner collaborated on their company's Global Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Task Force 
which they "created ... in March 2020 during the onset of the global pandemic." K-N- stated: 
Our goal to create the Task Force with a triple positive impact was reached: we were able 
to save lives by facilitating production of PPE; save jobs by assisting our customers in 
retooling manufacturing; and generate business for I I 
[The Petitioner's] role in the Global PPE Task Force was instrumental. She was key with 
her external and internal communications, such as with the online Resource Center we put 
in place for customers. She additionally supported the project organizational team by 
doing webinars and coordinating the communication. In particular, her work helped 
advance the public and national interest by safeguarding lives and jobs and helping to 
build and increase domestic manufacturing capacities, which she has expressed 
consistently as key overall career goals. 
2 The Form 1-140 petition in this matter was filed in March 2021. In June 2021,.....______ _.was acquired by 
I I a French technology company specializing in software and cutting-room systems for industries using soft material 
such as leather and textiles. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted letters of support from 
her supervisors atl !offering additional information about her proposed endeavor. In his letter, D-
H-, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer atl Istated: 
Since June 2021 [the Petitioner] has served as VP Marketing for the Americas and 
manages both .________ ___, product ranges throughout Marketing and 
Communication. . . . Her key responsibilities include: 
• Oversight, strategy, planning and execution of all marketing strategies in the 
Americas regions; 
• Generating product demand and increasing company revenue; 
• Liaising with external and internal members, including press, media, vendors, 
and company executives; 
• Managing the I !Innovation Center; 
• Collaborating and maintain all relationships with associations and partners; 
• Maintain a sharp and deep understanding of the technologies utilized within the 
textile industry, including apparel, automotive, industrial and furniture 
industries; and 
• Continue to develop expertise in strategies for increases to on-shore production, 
on-demand production and domestic economic and job growth. 
In his letter, L-M-, President of the Americas forl Iindicated that he and the Petitioner have 
worked together since he became her direct manager in June 2020. L-M- stated: 
Following I I acquisition of '--------~ I was asked to lead the 
America's region for the combined company, and she was selected to lead all of the 
region's markring effrts. These efforts include managing a team of seven people 
covering all of markets in an effort to promote our solutions and demonstrate 
thought leadership through a variety of means. The means include digital awareness 
leveraging well known systems such as and trade show 
presence such as the I Iwhere [ the Petitioner] and I presented 
to a host of furniture industry executives sharing industry trends and new product 
solutions. In her role, [the Petitioner also has direct oversight of our 18,000 square 
foot innovation center in._______ ~which exhibits the latest in on-demand 
manufacturing .... 
With regard to the Petitioner's service on her company's PPE Task Force in 2020, L-M- asserted that 
Iprovided its customers with the resources they needed to convert their traditional 
apparel production to PPE and that "this information was shared via a web portal" for which the 
Petitioner "lead the development . . . and continuously improved upon as more resources became 
available." L-M- further noted that I l"Task Force not only helped accelerate PPE 
production which slowed the spread ofCOVID-19 and saved lives, but it also saved jobs by generating 
much needed revenue for.________ _. and our customers .... " 
The record also includes information about the I I Partnership, the ~I_____ _. 
Collaboration, and digital end-to-end solutions for the textile industry. In addition, the Petitioner 
3 
I 
provided articles about transformation initiatives and automation in the fashion, apparel, and furniture 
industries. She also submitted information regarding global PPE initiatives and PPE manufacturing 
and production. This information, along with the letters of support and other corroborating evidence 
in the record, is sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's determination on this issue. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided letters of support from W-C-, C-C-, M-U-, M-H-, J-K-B-, and S­
B- discussing her marketing capabilities and experience and her company projects. The Petitioner's 
skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field (such as serving on .__ ______ ____.PPE Task 
Force), however, 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. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the first, 
second, and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Regarding Dhanasar' s first prong, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor. The Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed work "stands to 
sufficiently extend beyond an organization and its clients or the individuals [the Petitioner] would 
serve to impact the industry or field more broadly." The Director further indicated that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that her undertaking offers broader implications in the field, significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects. 
In her appeal brief: the Petitioner does not directly contest the Director's conclusion that she had not 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's first prong. Nor 
does her appeal brief directly challenge the Director's determination that she had not established she 
is well-positioned to advance her endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong. Accordingly, we deem 
these two issues abandoned. See Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise 
them on appeal to the AAO). 
Nonetheless, we will address the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the substantial merit of her 
proposed endeavor in the context of national importance as well under the first prong ofDhanasar. The 
Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed endeavor seeks "to promote economic growth and 
employment in the U.S. and to increase domestic-based production through the development of cutting­
edge technologies within the textile industries." She asserts that her undertaking contributes to "American 
based manufacturing, production and onshoring by promoting companies within the apparel, textile, 
furniture and fashion industries to utilize technological and digital advancements."3 The Petitioner also 
contends that her proposed endeavor stands "to provide for increasing global pandemic responsiveness 
for the textile industry within the U.S." She points to the letters from K-N- and L-M- discussing her work 
forj IPPE Task Force in 2020, but this past work in her field relates to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign 
3 While the Petitioner's job as a marketing executive includes making her customers aware of advancements in technology 
such as 3-dimensional software, body/contact contouring software, on-demand production software, digital factories, 
cloud-based technologies, digital printing solutions, made-to-measure production, and print-to-cut workflows, she has not 
demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor involves conceiving or inventing such technologies. Instead, her 
undertaking involves promoting these existing technologies to her company's current and prospective customers. 
4 
national." See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 890. As previously explained, the issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar' s 
first prong. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner provides additional letters of support from R-P-, Industrial Account 
ExecutiveJ land J-G-, Vice President of Sales, .....________ ..... R-P-
discusses the Petitioner's past projects at their company rather than explaining how her proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. J-G- asserts that the Petitioner 's undertaking is of national 
importance because advancements such as digitalization and Industry 4.0 can help the U.S. textile 
industry. The issue here, however, is not the importance of technological advancements in general or 
the industry in which she will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. The letters from R-P- and J-G-, as well as those from K­
N-, D-H- and L-M-, do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include 
adequate corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner 's specific proposed work as a marketing 
executive offers broader implications in her industry or substantial positive economic effects for our 
nation that rise to the level of national importance. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance 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. In Dhanasar, we further 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 valuable marketing leadership services for her 
employer and beneficial automation solutions for its customers, she has n ot 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 employer or its customer base to impact her field or 
the U.S. textile industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner 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 our nation. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic 
impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional 
or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's marketing projects would reach the level of 
"substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
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 
5 
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. 4 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 has 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. 
4 As mentioned, the Petitioner's appeal brief does not directly contest the Director's determination that she had not 
established she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong. 
6