dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Occupational Health And Safety

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 23, 2024 In Re: 33963321 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an occupational health and safety specialist, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional 
ability. Additionally, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 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 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 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. 
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. 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 Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
• 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's proposed endeavor is to open and manage an environmental consultancy firm which 
will "improve current occupational health and safety systems in the operations and business 
environments of small, medium, and large companies in the US." 2 He explains that through his 
business, which will be based in I I Massachusetts, 3 he will provide consulting, training, 
and technical services relating to workplace safety, health, environmental issues, compliance with 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and other regulations, and 
performance improvement. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the proposed endeavor. We agree that the Petitioner has not established the 
national importance of his proposed endeavor and therefore cannot meet the requirements for a 
national interest waiver. Accordingly, we will not reach whether he has established eligibility for the 
underlying EB-2 classification. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The Petitioner contends that through his environmental consultancy firm based in Massachusetts, he 
will promote "safe and sustainable work practices across diverse sectors of the economy," thereby having 
a broad impact on the economy, worker health and safety, environmental protection, and society as a 
whole. He states his proposed endeavor will positively influence the quality of life in the United States 
through reducing occupational hazards, improving workplace health, and contributing to sustainability 
and compliance with environmental regulations. Further, he states his efforts will improve productivity, 
reduce healthcare costs, and provide new employment opportunities. He submits a copy of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as well as articles with information and statistics about 
work-related injuries, occupational health and workplace safety in general, the impact of the Covid-19 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 The Petitioner states in the second page of his appeal brief that he is a "Tourism Professional Consultant." This appears 
to be a mistaken reference. 
3 Other portions of the evidence state the proposed company will be in Massachusetts. The exact 
planned location of the company is not clear from the record. We also note that although the Petitioner indicated on his 
initial petition that his mailing address was in Massachusetts, he indicates on appeal that his mailing address is now in 
Washington, DC. It is not clear whether this impacts his plans to start a business in Massachusetts. 
2 
pandemic on workplace safety, environmental health and safety, grant funding from the U.S. Department 
of Labor for projects relating to worker safety and health, the economic implications of recycling, 
"Immigration and Entrepreneurship in the United States," and employment data relating to jobs 
promoting occupational safety. However, the matter here is not whether these issues are nationally 
important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of his specific, proposed 
endeavor of operating an occupational safety consultancy firm in Massachusetts. 4 
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 Petitioner contends that his proposed endeavor will help resolve occupational shortages in 
environmental management and occupational safety fields. However, the alleged shortage of 
occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under 
the Dhanasar framework. In fact, such shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the 
U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stresses his skills and experience in occupational safety. But the Petitioner's 
knowledge, skills, and abilities 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 he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first 
prong. 
The Petitioner also submits letters ofrecommendation from past employers and colleagues. However, 
the letters do not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to his specific 
projects and clients. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and accomplishments and 
relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. at 890. A 
letter of intent from a construction company in Boston, describing a non-binding plan for a potential 
partnership with the Petitioner, similarly does not offer details about the national importance of the 
specific endeavor. 
Further, the Petitioner submits an expert opinion letter from an adjunct professor at ______ 
I lwho discusses the importance of occupational health and safety, the possible impact of the 
Petitioner's planned company on small and medium companies' ability to protect their employees and 
comply with regulatory requirements, and the need for risk management in high-risk sectors. The letter 
mentions the Petitioner's potential to contribute to broad economic growth through employment and 
economic ripple effects, promotion of sustainable business practices that will have a global impact, 
enhancing societal welfare through improving workplace safety and environmental protection, and 
contributing to the general body of knowledge on occupational health and environmental safety. The 
letter notes that federal programs illustrate the importance of workplace safety and environmental 
4 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than 
national importance. 
3 
sustainability. However, the letter generally discusses the importance of various topics and subjects 
without showing the wider effect in the field of the Petitioner's particular proposed endeavor. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how the Petitioner's endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond his prospective clients and employees to impact the field or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
sufficient supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures. He did not demonstrate how 
his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales of $1,290,000 in the first year and rising to 
$2,604,376 in year five, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the 
benefits to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic 
effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the 
creation of seven jobs in the first year and increasing to 22 in the fifth year, plus indirect job creation and 
economic ripple effects, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers and show 
that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to regions in 
Massachusetts or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Further, although he indicated plans to begin operations in Massachusetts but then expand to New 
England in the second year and Florida in the third, he did not provide details about those plans or data 
about the economic impacts his company would have in those regions. The Petitioner, for instance, 
did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant population of workers in the 
area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, either regionally or nationally. 
He claims that his work could reduce costs linked to workplace accidents, fines, and environmental harm, 
increase the productivity of companies, and employ workers in economically depressed areas, but he does 
not provide detail or data to show the economic impact of his specific, proposed endeavor. For all these 
reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the limited benefits provided to its prospective 
clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications rising to the level 
of having national importance or that it would offer substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Because this issue is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his 
eligibility for EB-2 visa classification under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act as an individual of 
exceptional ability. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5