dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pastoral Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 24, 2024 In Re: 33959922 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a pastoral psychology and theologist professional, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of 
exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this 
EB-2 classification. 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 established 
he was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated 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 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. 
The Petitioner stated that he will "enhance the quality of life for the elderly, promoting their literacy, 
mental health, and overall well-being," and their spiritual needs, by utilizing his expertise in 
occupational therapy, community engagement, educational leadership, and his background in pastoral 
psychology. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a 
business plan, dated after the current petition was filed, that indicated he will establish and manage 
the Family Center that will provide counseling and therapy services to the elderly, children, 
adolescents, and families . The business plan noted that the Family Center will deal with issues of 
substance abuse and rehabilitation , mental health, depression, divorce, elderly counseling, and 
spiritual guidance. 
In the denial, the Director quoted the Petitioner's statements and identified numerous deficiencies in 
the evidence and explained specifically why the evidence did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. The Director determined that the Petitioner's business plan and RFE 
response constituted an impermissible material change to his proposed endeavor. A petitioner may 
not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Although the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner made a material change to the proposed endeavor, he provided 
a thorough analysis in the decision of the proposed endeavor as described in both submitted business 
plans. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief which generally reiterates the benefits of his profession 
and his qualifications and contends that he has established the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor but does not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's 
determination. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting 
and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has 
squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of 
Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and 
analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims under the first prong of Dhanasar, including his 
personal statements and business plans, his job experience and skills, and the claimed economic impact 
of his proposed endeavor. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's experience and ability claims, those relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. Moreover, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of his business rather than 
the importance of family counseling services and entrepreneurship. 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." Id. at 889. Further, "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. Also, "[a]n endeavor that has particularly 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his proposed endeavor of providing family counseling services 
has national importance because it is essential for promoting mental health, enhance familial 
relationships, ensure the well-being of communities and help underprivileged families. In addition, 
the Petitioner notes that the Family Center will lead to employment opportunities that will in tum aid 
in U.S. economic growth. However, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient 
details, and the record does not adequately show through supporting documentation, how the 
Petitioner's business and services stand to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective clients and 
families to impact the industry or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient evidence regarding the 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation directly attributable to his future work, the record does 
not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. 
2 
Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required 
by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility 
for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
2 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3