dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 7, 2024 In Re: 32829278 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a public relations consultant who seeks to provide public relations consulting services, 
seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 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 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. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility for the underlying 
EB-2 visa classification at section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, 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 demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, 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, 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, 1 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 that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 immigrant classification. However, the 
Director denied the Petitioner's national interest waiver request, concluding that she had not 
established the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of Dhanasar, that 
she is well position to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong, and 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, as required under third prong. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
individual 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. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Here, however, the Petitioner has provided contradictory evidence 
regarding the nature of the proposed endeavor as an initial matter; therefore, it is not possible to conclude 
that the Petitioner will be engaged in a proposed endeavor that meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
On the NIW petition and in her accompanying statements, the Petitioner asserted that she has had a 
prominent career in public relations in Brazil and that her proposed endeavor is to provide public relations 
consulting and communications advice to established enterprises or startup companies in the United States 
through her public relations organization. The Petitioner stated that public relations professionals are 
needed to assist the growth of small and established U.S. businesses, especially in the aftermath of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner indicated that she has already organized an entity named O-G- LLC 
in Florida through which she will accomplish her public relations endeavor, and that O-G- LLC is already 
generating income based on her work as a public relations consultant in Florida. The Petitioner provided 
a 2022 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, showing that 
O-G- LLC had gross receipts or sales of $247,932 in that year. According to the Petitioner, she and her 
husband also founded an organization in Florida named I-D- LLC, for the purposes of promoting real 
estate development, and that she serves as the organization's public relations manager. She included a 
May 2023 letter from an individual named A-P-, who stated that he had collaborated with the Petitioner 
on a real estate investment opportunity in Florida through his organization, G- LLC ( elsewhere described 
as G-H- LLC), and the Petitioner's organization named I-D- LLC and found the Petitioner to be "an 
excellent sales professional who demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the U.S. real estate market, 
including trends, regulations, buying and selling processes, real estate financing and investment analysis." 
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). 
2 
With respect to her claim that she will engage in a proposed endeavor that has substantial merit, the 
Petitioner provided articles discussing the critical role of public relations work. For example, the 
articles state that public relations work promotes the visibility of a company, thereby allowing it to 
"expand economic growth" in the United States or globally, and that it also ensures consumers can 
make informed decisions on the brands they support thereby creating further interest and growth in 
those brands. The Petitioner included a 2023 U.S. Chamber of Commerce article on worker shortages 
in the United States, and an article on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small businesses. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided news articles on the importance of public relations work for new 
businesses as well as for any business during a recession, seeking to establish the need for public 
relations professionals as a general matter. Based on these claims, the Director's determined that the 
Petitioner's proposed work as a public relations consultant who intends to help other companies and 
consumers has substantial merit. However, as stated, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's 
evidence did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that she established the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor as a public relations consultant by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Director 
failed to fully assess all of the previously provided evidence, citing to Matter of Buletini, 
850 F. Supp. 1222, 1223 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding that failure to consider all of the relevant evidence 
is an abuse of discretion). In her appeal brief, the Petitioner emphasizes that her business plan shows 
that she will be the CEO of a public relations organization in Florida, and that it will eventually generate 
26 direct and 98 indirect jobs. 
Upon review, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision as it relates to national importance under 
prong one of the Dhanasar analysis. See Matter ofBurbano, 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). Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, the 
Director properly reviewed and analyzed the Petitioner's national importance claims and the relevant 
evidence under the first prong of Dhanasar, including her business plan and employment creation 
assertions, and discussed their deficiencies. 2 
Here, the Petitioner must establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor rather than the 
importance of public relations work, small businesses, entrepreneurism, and immigration. 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 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. at 890. 
2 The Director concluded the Petitioner established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. 
3 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established her 
proposed endeavor of providing public relations consulting services sufficiently extends beyond her 
company and its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly, at a level commensurate 
with national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. Moreover, although the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that her company will generate 26 
direct and 98 indirect jobs, she also did not demonstrate how her claimed employment and revenue 
projections, even if credible, will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for our nation. Id. at 890. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor 
as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision; therefore, she has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. This determination is dispositive of 
the appeal, and further analysis of her appeal arguments regarding her 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) (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 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4