dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Personal Grooming Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 28086601 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a personal grooming industry entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, 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 employment based second preference (EB-2) 
classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 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. See 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification. 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 Christa'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 immigrant 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines exceptional ability as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business." To demonstrate 
exceptional ability, a petitioner must submit at least three of the types of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii): 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer( s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
If the above standards do not readily apply, the regulations permit a petitioner to submit comparable 
evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
And because this classification requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a 
separate showing is required to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national 
interest. Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we 
set forth a three-prong analytical framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of 
discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the labor certification, to a 
petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to 
advance the proposed endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
noncitizen 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. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the noncitizen. To determine whether 
the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including but 
not limited to the individual's education, skills, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar 
efforts. A model or plan for future activities, progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor, and 
the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are also 
key considerations. 
2 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance of applicable factors, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. USCIS may evaluate factors such as whether, in light of the nature of the noncitizen' s 
qualification or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the noncitizen to secure a 
job offer or for the petition to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming that other qualified 
U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the noncitizen's contributions; 
and whether the national interest in the noncitizen's contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant 
forgoing the labor certification process. Each of the factors considered must, taken together, indicate 
that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Categorical Ineligibility for EB-2 Classification 
In the first instance, we note the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requested the Petitioner provide 
evidence to demonstrate their categorical eligibility for classification as an EB-2 immigrant. We 
conclude the Director correctly determined that the record as it is currently composed does not contain 
sufficient relevant, material, or probative evidence of at least five years of progressive work experience 
the Petitioner earned after conferral of their bachelor's degree. So we conclude that the Petitioner is 
not qualified for EB-2 immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional. And the record 
does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability. So we conclude that the Petitioner is categorically 
ineligible for EB-2 immigrant classification. 
1. The Petitioner Has Not Sufficiently Demonstrated Eligibility For EB-2 Classification As An 
Advanced Degree Professional 
The evidence the Petitioner submitted into the 
record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines advanced degree to mean any United States academic or 
professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a baccalaureate. A United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree and so permit 
classification as an EB-2 permanent immigrant. Progressive experience can be demonstrated by the 
Petitioner by providing letters from current or former employers showing that they have at least five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. The regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.S(g)(l) requires letters from current or former employers include the name, address, and title of 
the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed. 
The Petitioner claimed they earned a four-year bachelor's degree in administration from Universidade 
in July 2013. The Educational Database for Global Education (EDGE), created ~-------~ by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), reflects 
that four-year bachelor's degrees earned at accredited institutions of higher education in Brazil are the 
single source equivalent to a United States bachelor's degree. So the Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor's 
3 
degree in administration is a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate degree in administration 
from an accredited U.S. institution of higher education. 
The petitioner provided several letters to document their accumulation of more than five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate work experience. But the letters contained in the record were not 
sufficient to evaluate whether the Petitioner had earned five years of progressively responsible post­
baccalaureate work experience in the specialty. Several letters were written by individuals who were 
mentored by the Petitioner, sought out the Petitioner's endorsement for their hair care products, or 
attended vocational courses with the Petitioner. So, these letters were not written by current or former 
employers. 
The Petitioner did submit several letters from individuals that engaged them for their services. But 
whilst these letters did contain the name, address, and title of the writer, they did not contain a 
sufficient specific description of the duties the Petitioner performed during their post baccalaureate 
work experience. In other words, whilst the letters described the fields the Petitioner provided their 
services in, it was not clear from the description what duties the Petitioner would perform in those 
fields. If we cannot determine what work the Petitioner performed and whether it was in the 
Petitioner's field of specialty, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner is an advanced degree 
professional as a non-citizen who has earned a single source bachelor's degree in a field of specialty 
with at least five years progressively responsible post-baccalaureate work experience in the specialty. 
So the record does not contain adequate evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 
classification as a professional with an advanced degree. 
2. The Petitioner Is Not An Individual of Exceptional Ability 
The Petitioner asserted eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant classification as a non-citizen of 
exceptional ability with supporting evidence. The Director evaluated the Petitioner's assertions and 
evidence and issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting additional documentation to consider 
whether the Petitioner qualified for eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant classification as a non­
citizen of exceptional ability. The Petitioner did not submit any assertions or evidence in their 
response to the RFE. But on appeal, the Petitioner appears to renew their claim to eligibility for 
eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant classification as a non-citizen of exceptional ability. In 
general, we do not accept new assertions supported by new evidence on appeal when, as here, a 
petitioner was put on notice for the need for additional evidence to demonstrate eligibility through an 
RFE and was given a reasonable opportunity to provide additional evidence. See Matter ofSoriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988) and Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). But, we will 
nevertheless exercise our discretion and consider the Petitioner for second preference permanent 
immigrant classification eligibility the Petitioner claims as a noncitizen of exceptional ability for the 
first time on appeal. 
The Petitioner's contention that the RFE "did not explain why it deemed the other three criteria 
insufficiently evidenced" is considerably dimmed considering the fact the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence or assertions to support their eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a noncitizen of 
exceptional ability or submit supporting evidence in their RFE response. It is always the Petitioner's 
burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit they seek. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
4 
Although we conclude the record reflects the Petitioner's attainment of a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning in accord with the 
criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), the remaining evidence in the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for EB-2 nonimmigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. 1 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the noncitizen has 
at least ten years offit/I-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
The Petitioner proposed to work as an entrepreneur in the personal grooming industry. In support of 
their experience with current or former employers, the Petitioner submitted several experience letters. 
The letters purporting to support the Petitioner's work experience in the occupation are not sufficient 
material, relevant, or probative evidence of at least ten years of the Petitioner's full-time experience 
in the occupation they seek to undertake in the United States. 
As we discussed earlier, several letters were written by individuals who were mentored by the 
Petitioner, sought out the Petitioner's endorsement for their hair care products, or attended vocational 
courses with the Petitioner. So, these letters were not written by current or former employers and 
cannot evidence the Petitioner's full-time experience in their occupation. 
The remaining letters submitted were from individuals that engaged the Petitioner for their services. 
But whilst these letters did contain the name, address, and title of the writer, they did not contain a 
sufficient specific description of the duties the Petitioner performed for us to evaluate whether the 
duties were in the same occupation the Petitioner intended to perform as part of their proposed 
endeavor in the United States. And the letters did not specify if the work the Petitioner performed was 
full-time. Moreover, the earliest point in time these letters specified as when the Petitioner 
commenced performing services was some unspecified point in 2015. Any point of time in the year 
2015 is less than 10 years from the date the Petitioner filed their petition. 
So, the letters the Petitioner submitted do not support a conclusion the Petitioner has at least ten years 
of full-time experience in the occupation of marketing director. 
Evidence of a license to practice the profession or cert[fication for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
In support of their licensure or certification to perform the duties of a marketing director, the Petitioner 
submitted a copy with translation of an identity card issued by Regional Council of Administration of 
I i(Conselho Regional de Administrac;ao dol I identifying them as an administrator. But 
this document is not persuasive to demonstrate a license or certification. 
1 The Petitioner did not assert eligibility nor did they submit evidence in support of a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrated their exceptional ability under the criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). And 
they did not submit evidence of membership in professional associations under the criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
5 
Licenses and certifications show that a person has the specific knowledge or skill needed to do a job. 
A license, generally conferred by an official government body, confers legal authority to work in an 
occupation. A certification, whilst not always required to work in an occupation, generally requires 
demonstrating competency to do a specific job. 
At the outset, we note the Petitioner has submitted an identify card, not a licensure or certification. 
And the record does not convincingly establish the identify card relates to a licensure or certification. 
But even if we were to accept at face value that the identity card reflected a licensure or certification, 
we would not conclude that it met the criterion because it reflects the Petitioner is an administrator. 
The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to perform the services of an entrepreneur in a personal 
grooming business. And the record does not reflect what duties an administrator would be expected 
to perform and how they correspond to the endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake. So we 
cannot conclude that the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or certification for a 
particular profession or occupation. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and sign[ficant contributions to the industry or _field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
The Petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation prepared contemporaneously with these 
immigrant petition proceedings to demonstrate that they have been recognized for achievements and 
significant contributions to their field by peers, governmental entities or professional or business 
organizations. But the evidence the Petitioner submitted did not meet the standard of proof because it 
did not satisfy the basic standards of the regulations. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 7 4 
n.7. The regulation requires evidence of recognition of achievements and significant contributions. 
When read together with the regulatory definition of exceptional ability, the evidence of recognition 
of achievement and significant contributions should show expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 
The Petitioner's letter of recommendation are not evidence of the Petitioner's recogmt10n of 
achievement and significant contributions reflecting their expertise as significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. For example, a letter from an individual who sought out the 
Petitioner's endorsement for their product did not specify and the record does not reflect what the 
Petitioner did to "make the economy revolve and grow through [their] work and skill" and "contribute 
to the self-esteem and confidence of many people." Without knowing what the Petitioner specifically 
did, we cannot evaluate whether it could be an achievement and significant contribution demonstrating 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Similarly, a letter from an 
individual who took courses with the Petitioner credited the Petitioner with "generating an excellent 
service for society, generating jobs, taxes, revenues, profits, and currency circulation" and 
stated that "techniques and solutions created by [the Petitioner] were responsible for bringing 
knowledge to several cities in Latin America ... generating a significant improvement in health, well­
being, and self-esteem." Again, the letter writer did not specify and the record did not reflect what the 
Petitioner did to realize these purported benefits rendering evaluation of whether they were 
achievements and significant contributions reflecting expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in their field. One letter described the Petitioner as having "contributed to the 
development of a scheduling application for barbershops, facilitating the internal administration of 
6 
any barbershop and generating greater comfort and practicality to the public that frequents them." But 
the record did not support and the Petitioner did not demonstrate how a scheduling application for 
barbershops is an achievement and significant contribution at a level above what would ordinarily be 
encountered in the Petitioner's fields. 
And the Petitioner submitted many vocational certificates reflecting participation in workshops and 
courses. But the record does not evidence how completion of the workshop or courses the certificates 
the Petitioner possesses represent achievements and significant contributions above that ordinarily 
encountered in their field. So we cannot conclude that the Petitioner meets this ground of eligibility. 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility in any three of the six criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). They cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). So we need not provide a final merits determination to evaluate whether the 
Petitioner has achieved the required level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 
Consequently, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility for permanent 
immigrant classification in the EB-2 category. 
B. Eligibility for Discretionary Waiver of the Job Offer, And So a Labor Certification, in the National 
Interest. 
1. The Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated manager as the proposed job title on their Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker. They describe their endeavor to require them to "manage business operations and 
directs personal service function of barber shop. Confers with employees to ensure quality services 
for patrons" The conduit for the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is the management of a barbershop 
and school they intend to establish. 
2. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
a) Substantial Merit 
An endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, 
science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar at 889. The record before us contains 
evidence of the characterization of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as entrepreneurial, which falls 
within the range of areas we concluded could demonstrate endeavor of substantial merit. So the record 
supports the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
b) National Importance 
Alongside demonstrating its substantial merit, a petitioner must also showcase the national importance 
of their proposed endeavor. We conclude that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not have the 
required national importance to meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
The Petitioner's endeavor as a "manager" proposed to "manage business operations and directs 
personal service function of barber shop. Confers with employees to ensure quality services for 
7 
patrons" The endeavor intended to "offer a range of hair and beard services for men, hair cutting 
services for women and children, as well as barber training courses." 
In support of their claim of eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus 
of a labor certification, under Dhanasar the Petitioner submitted recommendation letters, their 
business plan, copy of degree with transcripts and an evaluation of training, experience, and education, 
several vocational certificates of training, completion, and attendance, news articles, business awards, 
and copy of a professional identity card. 2 
When evaluating the national importance of a proposed endeavor, the relevant question is not the 
performance of the proposed endeavor which the individual will operate; instead, we focus on "the 
specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. So we are not concerned with the individual petitioner when evaluating the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework; we are focused on the petitioner's proposed endeavor. And to 
demonstrate the national importance of a proposed endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong, we look to 
its potential prospective impact. In Dhanasar we said that when we look to a proposed endeavor's 
potential prospective impact "we look for broader implications." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Broader implications are not necessarily evaluated from a narrow frame of reference such as 
geography; implications within a field which demonstrate a national or even international influence of 
broader scale can rise to a level of national importance. And substantial positive economic impacts, 
such as a significant potential to employ U.S. workers particularly in an economically depressed area, 
can also help a proposed endeavor rise to a level of national importance. The success of the endeavor, 
or attributes that could tend to make the endeavor more successful, are consequently not as important 
as determining whether the proposed endeavor itself stripped away from a petitioner has attributes that 
would highlight the prospective positive impact of its broader implications or positive economic 
effects rising to a level of national importance. 
The Petitioner identified two areas where their proposed endeavor would positively impact the national 
interest; "promoting job creation," and "promoting skilled, well-trained barbers. But the record does 
not contain adequate evidence to identify any positive economic impact rising to a level of national 
importance from the Petitioner's endeavor. 
The record contains insufficient evidence to support the positive economic effects the Petitioner 
expects will be realized by their proposed endeavor. As stated above one of the potential positive 
effects of their endeavor identified by the Petitioner is their potential for job creation. But the record 
does not adequately support the Petitioner's statement in their business plan and a mention to "hire 
initial staff'' in "Q3 2022." The Petitioner does not specify how many staff they intend to employ, or 
their roles in the endeavor. And the Petitioner does not identify where the locus of employment would 
be. So we are not able to consider whether the proposed job creation's significance or whether the job 
creation will be in an economically depressed area. So, the record does not support any potential 
positive economic effects, such as beneficially addressing high unemployment in economically 
depressed areas in a manner meaningful enough to implicate the national interest and rise to the level 
of national importance. 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
8 
And the proposed endeavor's aim to "promot[e] skilled, well-trained barbers" does not elevate it to a 
level of national importance. This is akin to how the benefit of someone's teaching is generally only 
directly beneficial to the students being taught and not wider population. The skill and training a 
nascent barber receives is for their own benefit and the benefit of those who engage their services. So 
the teaching of the skill and training is similar constrained. In Dhanasar we discussed how teaching 
would not impact the field of education broadly in a manner which rises to national importance. 
Dhanasar at 893. 
The record simply does not contain any meaningful analysis of the broader implications or potential 
positive economic impact rising to the level of national importance stemming from the Petitioner's 
specific performance of the duties of a general manager. The evidence in the record does not highlight 
how the prospective potential impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor could have broader 
implications implicating the national interest. For example, the letters ofrecommendation containing 
testimonials of the services the Petitioner performed do not describe how the benefits they have 
received connect to broader implications rising to national importance or any nationally important 
economic impact. It is unclear from the letters in the record how the establishment of an independent 
barbershop and training school would have a significant impact on the field of entrepreneurship 
beyond the barbershop and training school's immediate sphere of influence, namely those individuals 
who engage its services for personal grooming needs or receive training in personal grooming 
techniques. In other words, the record does not sufficiently highlight how the establishment of an 
independent barbershop and training school would broadly implicate matters in the field rising to a 
level of national importance. 
A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate 
burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition 
of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (reflecting the burden of proof 
includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). The Petitioner has not met their 
burden of proof with persuasive material, relevant, and probative evidence which by a preponderance 
demonstrates the national importance of their proposed endeavor. 
3. Well-Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
We conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that they are well positioned to advance 
their proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. In evaluating 
whether a petitioner is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor under the second prong of 
Dhanasar, we review (A) a petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related 
or similar efforts; (B) a petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor 
that the individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; (C) any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and (D) the interest or support garnered by the individual from 
potential customers, users, investor, or other relevant entities or persons. 
As stated above, a petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well 
as the ultimate burden of persuasion. Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1142 n.3. The record contains evidence 
of the Petitioner's academic record and employment history. But simply having education, skills, 
and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed 
9 
endeavor. This is only one factor amongst many factors which are evaluated together to determine 
how well positioned a petitioner is to advance a proposed endeavor. 
And the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior activities as described in the recommendation 
letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how it constitutes a record of 
success. The letters the Petitioner provided described the Petitioner as a "consultant" variously 
providing "consultant" services in "company administration and business, financial analysis support. 
As well as being responsible for direct training," "administrative strategies and in the area of team 
management," or applying "all [their] knowledge .. .in practice." Another letter from an individual 
who sought out the Petitioner's endorsement for their product did not specify and the record does not 
reflect what the Petitioner did to "make the economy revolve and grow through [their] work and skill" 
and "contribute to the self-esteem and confidence of many people." Without knowing what the 
Petitioner specifically did, we cannot evaluate whether it is a similar effort to the endeavor the 
Petitioner proposed to undertake in the United States. Similarly, a letter from an individual who took 
courses with the Petitioner credited the Petitioner with "generating an excellent service for society, 
generating jobs, taxes, revenues, profits, and currency circulation" and 
stated that "techniques and solutions created by [the Petitioner] were responsible for bringing 
knowledge to several cities in Latin America ... generating a significant improvement in health, well­
being, and self-esteem." Again, the letter writer did not specify and the record did not reflect how this 
was a similar effort to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. Still another letter described the Petitioner 
as having "contributed to the development of a scheduling application for barbershops, facilitating the 
internal administration of any barbershop and generating greater comfort and practicality to the public 
that frequents them." But the record did not support and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
development of a scheduling application for barbershops was a similar effort to the barbershop and 
training endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake. So the recommendation letters the Petitioner 
submitted are not material, relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the 
endeavor the Petitioner proposed in their petition. Whilst they speak generally of the Petitioner's 
realization of certain objectives and skill in their field, they do not sufficiently describe commonalities 
which could enable to evaluate whether they are a similar effort to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
It is not clear from the totality of the evidence in the record how an individualized consideration of the 
multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the 
Petitioner is to advance their proposed endeavor. So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, 
relevant, and probative evidence that they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
4. Balancing Factors to Determine Benefit to the United States of Granting Waiver of the Job 
Offer Requirement so that the Petitioner can Undertake the Proposed Endeavor. 
If the Director had found that the Petitioner met the eligibility requirements contained in the first and 
second prongs of the Dhanasar framework they would have moved to evaluating whether, on balance, 
the Petitioner had demonstrated that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The Director could have considered the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. 
of a petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the 
10 
capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers when conducting the balancing of 
the national interests of waiving the requirements of a job offer and therefore a labor certification. 
The record here does not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility under the first two prongs of the 
Dhanasar framework. But even if the first two prongs had been met, the petition could not have been 
approved because the record does not satisfy the third prong. The record does not contain sufficient 
evidence of factors like the impracticality of a labor certification, the benefit to the U.S. of a 
petitioner's contributions, the urgency of a petitioner's contributions to the national interest, the 
capacity for job creation, and any adverse effects on U.S. workers. So it is not evident in the record, 
on balance, that the requirement of a job offer and thus a labor certification, should be waived for the 
Petitioner. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated their categorical eligibility for EB-2 permanent immigrant 
classification. And the record contains insufficient evidence to establish they met the requisite prongs 
of the Dhanasar analytical framework. So we find that they have not established that they are eligible 
for or otherwise merit a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion, with each reason being an 
independent ground requiring dismissal of this appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11