dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2024 In Re: 30040812 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference (EB-2) immigrant, as well as a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement attached to this 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a 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 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. 53 7, 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. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner shows: 
• 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 job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. EB-2 Classification 
In order to qualify for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner must first show that he qualifies for the 
EB-2 classification under section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, either as an advanced degree professional 
or an individual of exceptional ability. We observe that the Director presented contradictory 
conclusions in her request for evidence (RFE) regarding whether the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 
classification. In denying the petition, the Director did not provide a determination addressing whether 
the Petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to show that he qualifies for this classification. 
As discussed below, the Petitioner has not presented adequate reasons or evidence on appeal to 
overcome the Director's determination that he is ineligible for a national interest waiver, as a matter 
of discretion. Therefore, we need not remand the matter to the Director to determine his eligibility for 
the EB-2 classification. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve this issue. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
B. National Interest Waiver 
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 Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not meet any of the three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. In 
deciding whether an individual qualifies for a national interest waiver, we must rely on the spec[fic 
proposed endeavor to determine whether it has both substantial merit and national importance. Based 
on our de novo review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established 
his eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. While we may not discuss every document submitted, 
we have reviewed and considered each one. 
The Petitioner intends to work as a public relations specialist, initially describing his proposed endeavor, 
as follows: 
I intend to continue by activities as a public relations specialist, utilizing all of the 
knowledge I acquired in programs and courses, along with my professional experience, 
which have considerably contributed towards the successful development of my work in 
an efficient manner, guaranteeing the best results. I also intend in improving my 
performance by taking new courses according to the demand in the field, which is 
constantly evolving. 
While he provided general information about the benefits of his occupation to the nation, he did not 
provide sufficient specific information about how he will conduct his endeavor. The initial filing 
2 
included, among other materials, an expert opinion letter from professor Q- who opines that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of the Dhanasar test. Professor Q- discusses aspects of the 
Petitioner's occupation and provides this generalized information about his endeavor: 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor to provide services in the U.S. is in demand and 
of national importance. Generally, public relations consultant uses press releases, 
newsletters and brochures to relay information to the media and the public on behalf of 
the company, organization or person they work for. They present the public face of 
their client and try to maintain or improve their public image. 
The analysis in professor Q-'s letter is not specific to the Petitioner's actual endeavor. Instead, he 
states that the Petitioner qualifies for Dhanasar 's first prong because "[t]he United States would 
greatly benefit from the expertise and skills of an experienced [p]ublic [r]elations [ c ]onsultant such as 
[the Petitioner], who has extensive knowledge and expertise in all aspects of communication strategies, 
public relations, marketing, and project management." As a matter of discretion, we may use expert 
opinion letters submitted by a petitioner as advisory testimony. However, USCIS is responsible for 
making the final determination regarding eligibility for the benefit sought. Where an opinion letter is 
not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or 
may give less weight to that evidence. Matter o_f Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). Here, the analysis offered in professor Q-' s letter is largely limited to general observations 
about the Petitioner's qualifications and the occupation and industry in which he will work. Professor 
Q- does not offer an analytical roadmap that lays out the basis for his opinion that the Petitioner meets 
Dhanasar 's first prong. We conclude the opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the 
matter here. Matter o_f Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The initial evidence did not offer specific information about the nature of the proposed endeavor 
beyond vaguely stating that the Petitioner would employ his public relations expertise with U.S. 
companies, and that those employed in this occupation benefit companies and their customers. The 
Director issued an RFE requesting documentation showing the actual nature of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor and how it would have substantial merit and be of national importance. While the 
Petitioner provided additional explanations in the RFE response, we conclude that he did not 
sufficiently address these aspects. 
The Petitioner offered evidence, including a professional plan, recommendation letters, and 
documentation regarding the economic benefits of public relations and immigrant labor and 
investment. The Director reviewed the record and ultimately denied the petition, concluding the 
evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit or that it would have 
economic or other impacts rising to the level of national importance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director did not properly consider the evidence or explain the reasons for his adverse 
determinations. We disagree. 
We acknowledge the various documents the Petitioner provided regarding the importance of his 
industry and occupation. However, when determining whether a proposed endeavor would have 
3 
substantial merit or national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession where the Petitioner will work, but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-890. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual ("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.") As noted 
by the Director, simply being employed in an occupation does not constitute an endeavor for the 
purposes of these proceedings. Id. 
Although the Petitioner's statements and other evidence, such as letters from prospective employers 
suggesting that he is qualified for hire in a public relations role, reflect his intention to continue 
working in the public relations industry in the United States, he has not offered sufficient information 
and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of 
national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Id. 
at 893. Even if the Petitioner's endeavor were in an area of substantial merit, he has not established 
its national importance because he has not provided sufficient documentation of its prospective impact 
on his field. Id. Similarly, the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's proposed 
endeavor stands to sufficiently impact U.S. interests or the public relations industry more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
In addition, he has not demonstrated that his specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. For 
example, on appeal the Petitioner puts forth vague assertions stating (verbatim) that he "will act as the 
leader of the marketing solutions sector to command the relationship and engagement with the public 
of the corporate complex. With this project, he will create a solid foundation for building a brand 
reputation through his management, management, and engagement skills to integrate operations with 
excellence." But the Petitioner did not submit plans or offer explanations sufficient to address how he 
would provide such services to U.S. companies in order to illustrate that the prospective impact of his 
public relations-related activities would rise to the level of national importance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also points to previously submitted letters of support which discuss his 
knowledge, skills, and work experience. The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field 
relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he 
proposes to undertake has substantial merit and national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. 
While we have considered the submitted letters, we conclude that they do not sufficiently explain the 
substantial merit and national importance of his specific endeavor under Dhanasar' s first prong. For 
instance, the letter froml I(F-), discusses aspects of the Petitioner's work abroad 
as a public relations manager, noting that "[t]he engagement generated by [the Petitioner] enable new 
business opportunities for [his employer abroad], considering his unique management capacity, 
advanced business techniques and good understanding of the market." F- asserts that the Petitioner 
4 
"[i]s a professional with advanced techniques and a lot of dedication to his work; therefore, there is no 
doubt in my mind that we are talking about someone remarkable in his field." In his letter, F- is 
complimentary about the Petitioner's business acumen and work ethic, but he does not describe what 
his prospective endeavor will specifically entail and how it will benefit our nation. Without more, the 
Petitioner has not established his proposed endeavor sufficient for us to determine that his work in the 
United States will have substantial merit and national importance. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove 
by a preponderance of evidence that he is qualified for the benefit sought. Chawathe, supra. In 
evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Id. The Petitioner has not done so here. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent. Accordingly, he has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis of his eligibility under the 
second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516. The petition 
will remain denied. 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. As such, 
we conclude that he has not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5