dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Occupational Safety

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2024 In Re: 34579058 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification, as an 
individual of exceptional ability, and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached 
to this classification. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(national interest waiver), concluding the Petitioner 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal.1 
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. 
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." 
1 We note that the Petitioner's signature on her national interest waiver does not match her signature on the instant appeal , 
or the signature on her passport, submitted with her national interest waiver, and other USCIS filings. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) and the national interest waiver instructions make clear that the application must be properly signed 
by the Petitioner. USCIS denies a benefit request accepted for adjudication if there is a deficient signature. See generally 
1 USCIS Policy Manual B.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing, as guidance, "[i]f USCIS accepts a 
request for adjudication and later determines that it has a deficient signature, USCIS denies the request.") In order to 
maintain the integrity of the immigration benefit system and validate the identity of benefit requesters, USCIS requires a 
valid signature on applications, petitions, requests, and certain other documents filed with USCIS. Id. The Director did 
not raise this ground as a basis for the denial. However, should the Petitioner submit future filings regarding this national 
interest waiver, she will need to demonstrate she was the individual who signed the underlying benefit request. 
Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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,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 determined the Petitioner demonstrated her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The Director 
also determined that the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor under 
Dhanasar 's first prong and that she was well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor under 
Dhanasar's second prong. However, the Director found the Petitioner had not established the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong or that on balance, waiving the job 
offer requirement would benefit the United States under Dhanasar's third prong. 
Dhanasar 's first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed 
endeavor. Id. at 889. The Petitioner is a workplace safety technician and entrepreneur who intends to 
direct the operations of a Florida based company to provide training programs in subjects related to 
occupational safety and health, environmental management, and environmental and social governance 
to U.S. businesses, organizations, and associations. The Petitioner intends to create gamified training 
content, which may be delivered in person or through an online platform, with the goal of improving 
employee safety, reducing workplace accidents, increasing productivity, and protecting the 
environment. 
As noted, the Director determined the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of her proposed 
endeavor. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. Id. In Dhanasar, we noted that, in assessing national importance, "we 
look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking may have national 
importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." 
Id at 890. 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides previously submitted data on work-related accidents and the related 
costs of workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses and asserts this data illustrates in a numeric and 
concrete way the impact of her proposed endeavor, claiming this information was overlooked by the 
Director. However, the record does not suppmi the Petitioner's assertions. The Director found that 
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 
the Petitioner's data regarding work related injuries, fatalities and disease and associated costs 
described the scale of the industry the Petitioner will work in and did not demonstrate the prospective 
impact of her proposed endeavor.3 We also conclude the Petitioner's data does not support the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. For example, the Petitioner asserts that nationally prevented 
lost-time injury or illness saves $37,000 and each avoided occupational fatality saves U.S. employers 
$1,390,000.4 She then infers that her proposed endeavor will have broader economic implications 
because it will reduce the costs involved in occupational safety. However, she does not explain how, 
for example, her proposed endeavor would reduce these costs such that it would result in national or 
global implications for the field or provide substantial economic benefits regionally or at a level of 
national importance. We acknowledge the Petitioner's hiring plan projections, which she summarizes 
on appeal. The Petitioner describes how her company will expand to a workforce of 23 employees by 
year five, with payroll expenses projected to increase to 1.4 million in year five. However, the 
Petitioner did not present supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and projected figures in 
the record below or on appeal. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her company's 
claimed revenue and employment projections, even if supported, would provide substantial economic 
benefits to the Florida region or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner adds that she will engage independent contractors for roles within the 
company which will allow for operational flexibility and stimulate the economy. She also adds that 
her endeavor will benefit underserved segments of the workforce, such as temporary or part-time 
workers. However, here again, the Petitioner does not explain how engaging contractors or part-time 
workers would provide substantial economic benefits to the Florida region or the U.S. economy at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that we overlooked the inherent challenges of forecasting concrete 
outcomes for endeavors not yet implemented. However, providing relevant growth metrics is just one 
way of evidencing national importance. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(0)(4), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing, as guidance, examples of how an entrepreneur may 
establish the national importance of their proposed endeavor, including evidence demonstrating a 
future intent to invest in the entity by an outside investor; funding from federal, state, or local 
government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job 
creation; awards or grants by policy or research institutes). Further, we note that on appeal the 
Petitioner includes three letters from different entities stating they plan on engaging the services of the 
company the Petitioner will be directing. However, the Petitioner does not reference or explain the 
letters in her appeal brief and the letters do not provide details on, for example, the entities themselves, 
their sizes and locations, to demonstrate acquiring them as clients would have national or global impact 
in the field or economic benefits to the Florida region or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner further asserts that we did not follow Dhanasar 's analytical framework because we also 
did not consider the broader social effects of her proposed endeavor's training programs. According 
to the Petitioner, her evidence demonstrates that her proposed endeavor would lead to significant 
3 The Director also considered the Petitioner's information regarding work related safety and the goals of her specific 
proposed endeavor in determining the Petitioner had demonstrated the substantial merit of her endeavor. See generally 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (explaining, as guidance, that "merit may be 
established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact"). 
4 The record below cites to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's website as the source of this data. 
3 
improvements in workplace safety in several industries, by, for example, reducing accidents, 
enhancing productivity and economic growth, raising industry standards, fostering societal and 
environmental benefits, equipping employees with essential knowledge about safety and health, 
environmental management, and governance. However, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not establish that her proposed endeavor would offer benefits that extend beyond her trainees to 
impact the field of workplace safety more broadly, nor did she establish that her proposed endeavor's 
plans would disseminate her training methods or course materials to influence the broader sector of 
the industry. Furthermore, we add that the Dhanasar decision contemplates that "[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." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 893. However, here, the Petitioner has not 
established the extent to which her proposed endeavor's methods and teachings, which she asserts, for 
example, involves an integrated approach to occupational safety, environmental management, and 
mental health, and ensures companies comply with regulatory requirements, differ from or improves 
upon those already available and in use in the United States such that her proposed endeavor would 
have national or global implications within her field or for the United States. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that her proposed endeavor is in an area that the U.S. government holds 
as nationally important. However, as the Director explained, 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 l&N Dec. at 889. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, beyond the limited benefits provided to 
her prospective clients, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has broader implications in the field of 
workplace safety or that it has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area for instance, rising to the 
level of national importance. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of the proposed endeavor 
under the first Dhanasar prong, and therefore eligibility for a national interest waiver. As our finding 
is dispositive of this appeal, we reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding whether she has 
demonstrated the second and third Dhanasar prongs. 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework and therefore 
has not established that she merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4