dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Occupational Health And Safety

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2024 In Re: 29460885 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an occupational health and safety specialist, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 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 determined that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The issue before us 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. 
The Petitioner worked in various occupational health and safety positions for employers in Turkey 
from 2013 to 2020. She entered the United States in August 2020 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor and 
filed the petition in May 2021. In July 2022, she began working as a cybersecurity analyst for a 
"[n]ational company focused on grocery, mobile and web application." 
The first Dhanasar prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor 
that the individual proposes to unde1iake. 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. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. While that impact can take different 
forms, such as economic benefit or advancement of knowledge, the Petitioner must show broader 
implications arising from the proposed endeavor. See id. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of the proposed 
endeavor, but had not shown that the proposed endeavor meets the other elements of the Dhanasar 
national interest framework. 
A "Professional Plan" submitted with the petition indicated that the Petitioner intends "to work as an 
Occupational Health and Safety Specialist," but provided no details beyond general descriptions of 
what the occupation entails, such as "risk assessment and accident prevention." These general traits 
address the substantial merit of the Petitioner's occupation, but they do not describe the Petitioner's 
specific proposed endeavor and establish its national importance. Likewise, the Petitioner submitted 
various background materials that establish the overall importance of the field occupational health and 
safety, but these materials do not describe the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted an "Advisory Evaluation" from an individual who has "published about 
30 scientific works in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering," and has "completed about 40 
projects in Engineering Software Development." The individual did not claim any background, 
training, or expertise in occupational health and safety. The advisory evaluation cited statistics about 
occupational health and safety, and provided background information, but did not describe the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and explain its national importance. 
The Director requested "[a] detailed description of the proposed endeavor and why it is of national 
impo1iance," supported by "[d]ocumentary evidence." In response, the Petitioner stated: 
2 
My goal is to enter the American job market as an Occupational Health and Safety 
Specialist and be able to implement my experience and knowledge that I have gained 
during the last decade. . . . In the long term, I also aspire to undertake in the field of 
consulting, offering services to solve problems in the field I cover. 
The statement provides no new details about the proposed endeavor apart from a general reference to 
consulting at some undefined point in the future. The Petitioner submitted documentation about her 
occupation, but these materials did not address her specific proposed endeavor or establish its national 
importance. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not "shown that her employment as an 
Occupational Health and Safety Specialist would have broader implications for the field of 
occupational health and safety" or that the proposed endeavor "would impact the field of occupational 
health and safety more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the petitioner's clients." The Director 
cited the passage from Dhanasar in which we acknowledged the petitioner's intention to teach college­
level classes, but we determined that the petitioner in that case had not established that he "would be 
engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that her expertise "will benefit any U.S. companies and individuals 
that need qualified professionals" in her field, and that her "first-hand knowledge of the commercial 
markets in the U.S. and Turkey" will produce "ripple effects . . . upon commercial activities, the 
business industry, foreign direct investments, and, ultimately, the U.S. economy." Statements in a 
brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. 
Matter of S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to 
demonstrate the potential impact or broader implications of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner 
also did not explain how the Beneficiary's "knowledge of the commercial markets in the U.S. and 
Turkey" is relevant to her proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner has primarily relied on general background information about occupational health and 
safety. The Petitioner, however, must establish the national importance of the specific proposed 
endeavor; it cannot suffice for the Petitioner to establish the overall importance of a particular subject, 
occupation, or field. Information about the overall importance of the field does not show the wider 
impact or broader implications of one person's work in that field. 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. 
Here, the Petitioner has provided little infmmation beyond stating her intention to work in the field of 
occupational health and safety. 
Beyond general statements about occupational health and safety, the Petitioner discusses other 
occupations without establishing their relevance to this proceeding. The Petitioner states that her 
"proposed endeavor is unquestionably of national importance, given the significant impact of the role 
that business development professionals play in every type of business." The Petitioner discusses 
"[t]he role of a business development professional" and states: "Business development and sales 
professionals, such as the Appellant, are key to companies' financial stability." The Petitioner, 
3 
however, has not proposed to work in the United States as a business development and sales 
professional. The Petitioner also makes general arguments about entrepreneurs, but the record does 
not describe the Petitioner as an entrepreneur apart from the general assertion that she eventually seeks 
to work as a consultant. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show the national 
impo1iance of her proposed endeavor. Detailed discussion of the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar 
national interest test cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on 
the second and third prongs, relating to whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor and whether, on balance, a waiver of the job offer requirement would be beneficial 
to the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, 
federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions 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 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4