dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Occupational Health

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 08, 2024 In Re: 31660486 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a health auditor and an entrepreneur, seeks second preference 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 immigrant 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 the EB-2 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. 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 l&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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 (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 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would benefit the 
United States. 
Id. at 889. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national 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. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 2 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. The 
Petitioner proposes to work as a health auditor and establish a consulting firm to improve the work 
environment of U.S. companies. The Petitioner plans to develop an audit model that identifies the 
cause of labor absenteeism, prevent work-related illnesses and safety hazards, and enhance the 
occupational health of workers in the United States. 
In evaluating Dhanasar's first prong, the Director concluded that although the Petitioner established 
the substantial merit of the proposed endeavor, she did not establish its national importance. 3 
Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that her audit models would have 
a broad impact on the field commensurate with national importance. The Director also found that the 
evidence was insufficient to establish the potential for significant positive economic effects. The 
Director stated that the evidence submitted emphasized the importance of the field or industry in 
general instead the importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Upon de novo review, 
we agree with the Director's conclusion. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that the Director disregarded the documentary evidence that 
demonstrates the endeavor's national importance such as "numerous reports, articles, and government 
initiatives" that are "aligned with the Petitioner's specific endeavor and its national relevance." 
However, these articles and reports provide a general overview of the field of occupational health and 
safety in workplaces and do not discuss the specific nature of the Petitioner' endeavor or the details of 
the innovative audit models that would broadly impact the field. Merely working in an important field 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the 
"the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake" and consider the endeavor's 
"potential prospective impact." Id. 
2 The record demonstrates that the Petitioner holds the foreign equivalent of two separate U.S. bachelor's degrees in 
physical education and business administration, as well as a U.S. master's degree in health administration. 
3 The Director did not analyze the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar framework, stating that because the Petitioner 
did not establish eligibility under the first prong, she did not demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
2 
Here, the Director properly noted the deficiency in the record documenting the interest of the federal 
government or other relevant national agencies in the Petitioner's specific proposal. In Dhanasar, we 
gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in 
academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research 
as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government 
interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Id. at 892. However, the Petitioner has not provided 
similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities 
detailing how her specific endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives. None of 
the articles and reports specifically mention the Petitioner's endeavor or discuss the government's 
interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's innovation or solutions. 
The Petitioner asserted that her endeavor will "provide companies with tools to adequately monitor 
and control the occupational health of workers" and "contribute to advancements in the field through 
generating statistical reports, plans, and programs to used as inputs for research in the field of public 
and occupational health." But the Petitioner has not suggested that her solutions or methodologies 
somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States, as 
contemplated by Dhanasar: "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." The Petitioner provided an example of her 
audit process created forl Iin 2014, 4 but the record does not offer any supporting evidence 
as how such audit model or process has a broad impact in the field. The accompanying reference 
letters from the Petitioner's former work colleagues generally praised her skills and accomplishments 
as a contract health auditor in Colombia but do not discuss the Petitioner's future endeavor or special 
methodologies attributable to the Petitioner that would have broad impact rising to the level of national 
importance. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director erred by overemphasizing the geographical scale of 
her endeavor. Although we agree with the Petitioner that the impact outlined in the Dhanasar "does 
not focus solely on a geographical scale," the Petitioner has not provided persuasive examples where 
the Director overemphasized the endeavor's geographical scope in the decision. In Dhanasar, we 
noted 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" or "[e ]ven ventures and 
undertakings that have as their focus one geographical area of the United States" may be considered 
to have national importance. Id. at 889-90. Therefore, the Director's statement that "the Petitioner 
has not shown ... benefits to the regional or national economy" to the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" aligns with the Dhanasar' s analytical framework and does not constitute, as 
claimed by the Petitioner, as "an abuse of discretion" or "a novel criterion." 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director erroneously relied "on the number of employees and the 
salary they will receive" without explaining "a degree of payment or a degree of workers to be hired 
is a number to be considered as a baseline." As the Petitioner noted, the words like "significant" and 
"substantial" are not defined in Dhanasar, but we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's claim that 
hiring seventeen U.S. workers is "more than enough to meet the plain language of the criterion when 
4 The Petitioner submitted a resume indicating that she worked for ___ as an audit professional from January 
2012 to July 2014 in Colombia. 
3 
coupled with the ample projection-based evidence provided in the record with respect to the 
likelihood of said employment of US workers." The Petitioner has not offered independent and 
corroborating evidence to support the basis of the financial and staffing projections in her business 
plan. While the metrics in the business plan indicate that the Petitioner's company has growth 
potential, the record lacks objective evidence to demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or 
national economy resulting from her business would have "significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers" or reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" as contemplated by Dhanasar. 
Id. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact the economy; however, the 
Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between her proposed endeavor's activities 
and any demonstratable substantial economic activities. We determined in Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. Similarly, we find that the 
Petitioner has not established her proposed endeavor in this case will sufficiently extend beyond her 
clientele and employees to affect the regional or national economy more broadly. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that "none of the evidence particularly submitted for this prong was 
analyzed but generally referred to and disregarded without adequate grounds." However, we find that 
the Director has acknowledged and analyzed various documents on record but concluded overall that 
the quality of the evidence lacked probative value in supporting national importance of the endeavor. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met her burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the 
evidence. Id.; see also Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish national importance of the 
proposed endeavor and does not meet the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the issue of her eligibility under the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find that 
she has not established eligibility for 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