dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 14, 2024 In Re: 31200867 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a public relations specialist, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established his eligibility for EB-2 classification, he did not demonstrate 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 pursuant to 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 Christo '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 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 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 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, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
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in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 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). 
I 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Master of Arts in Communication in 2018 from the 
I At the time of filing, the Petitioner's resume indicated that he was pursuing a Ph.D. in Strategic 
Communication at working as an adjunct professor at the same university, and teaching a Creative 
Presentation course at Between 2006 and 2015 he was head of global advertising 
and branding atl [in Brazil, a mining company. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, and the record supports this conclusion. Therefore, the 
primary issue on appeal is whether the Petitioner meets the requirements of the three prongs of the 
Dhanasar analytical framework and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
In denying the petition, the Director addressed all three prongs ofthe Dhanasar framework and concluded 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets any of them. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
he established that a waiver of the job offer requirement would be in the national interest and contends 
that the Director did not objectively evaluate all the submitted evidence. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner identified his proposed occupation as a public relations specialist on the Form T-140, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. He provided that he planned to "[e ]ngage in promoting or creating 
an intended public image for individuals, groups, or organizations. May write or select material for 
release to various communications media." The Petitioner initially submitted a Professional Plan & 
Statement dated 2020, indicating: 
Upon completion of my PhD program, I plan to apply for positions with PR firms and/or 
other U.S. Entities in need of reputation management or an updated 
communications/messaging platform. Ideally, I will prospect opportunities within U.S. 
Businesses, and I will also offer my services on a consultancy capacity - serving both 
American organizations, as well as foreign entities wishing to expand their services and/or 
products to the U.S. Market. 
I will continue my career as a public relations specialist, using my expertise in distinctive 
business areas to drive profitable opportunities for the U.S. marketplace .... In this way, 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
I will build and create PR campaigns that gamer global appreciation and enhancement of 
my serviced companies, brands, organizations, and clients. This will lead to the 
subsequent expansion of wealth and business into new markets, thus culminating in 
foreign direct investment (FDI), cross-border deals, employment for U.S. workers, and 
overall enhanced national economic patterns. Moreover, my work will also protect U.S. 
organizations from the damage caused by reputational crises. 
Within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a 
document titled "Personal Statement and Future Plans" dated 2023, 3 in which he claimed that he intended 
to conduct applied research in the field of risk and crisis communication as follows: 
The project that I am currently working as a full-time Postdoctoral Associate at the 
I Iis an interdisciplinary effort titled
I IThe project is funded by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) .... 
My work will be part of the broader contribution to the Cooperative Institut[e] for 
Research to Operations in Hydrology (CIROH). I am working along with a large team of 
social, ecological, and physical scientists, as the sole communication representative in the 
sub-project [to] develop crisis and risk communication strategies 
associated with flood and other water hazard risks .... 
As the Director noted, the Petitioner initially claimed he intended to work as a public relations specialist 
as an employee or consultant to U.S. businesses, to "create PR campaigns that gamer global appreciation 
and enhancement ofmy serviced companies." However, in response to the Director's RFE, the petitioner 
asserted for the first time that he intended to work as an applied researcher in the field of crisis and risk 
communication associated with water hazards. The Petitioner acknowledges on the Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, that the information about the initial proposed endeavor "was from a long time ago 
and his plans have changed since the time of original filing." His appeal provides new articles about his 
changed proposed endeavor. 
The Director concluded, and we agree, that the RFE response presented a new set of facts regarding the 
proposed endeavor, which is material to eligibility for a national interest waiver. See Matter ofMichelin 
Tire C01p., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); see also Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. The 
Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see 
also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) (requiring a noncitizen to qualify 
for a proposed job by the time of a petition's filing). A petitioner also may not materially change a 
petition after its filing. Matter oflzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 175 (AAO 1998). For the reasons stated 
in Katigbak and lzummi, we conclude that the Director did not err by basing the decision on the 
Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor, which was to work as a public relations specialist. Accordingly, 
we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of applied researcher. 
3 The Petitioner's RFE response also contained his Ph.D. degree in Strategic Communication from earned in 2022. 
3 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
To satisfy the first prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that his proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. This prong of the 
Dhanasar framework focuses on the specific endeavor 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. As 
stated, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet his burden to establish the national 
importance of the endeavor. 
In support of his claim that the proposed endeavor has national importance consistent with the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, the Petitioner initially provided published articles and reports 
addressing the importance of business reputation risk management, international companies to the 
U.S. economy, and cultural competency to international brand success. When determining national 
importance, however, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, sector, or profession 
in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner must still 
demonstrate the potential prospective impact of his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his 
particular public relations services rather than the importance of the occupation or the industry or field. 
In Dhanasar, we further noted that "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. 
Specifically, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not shown how his proposed endeavor 
would have broader implications within his field that would reach beyond clients utilizing his services, 
or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare. In this regard, the Director observed that the 
Petitioner's claims that the proposed endeavor would help businesses expand and increase company 
sales did not appear to extend beyond his clients and customers to demonstrate the national importance 
of his endeavor. The Director further observed that the record did not demonstrate that the proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers, would impact an economically depressed 
area, or would have benefits to the regional or national economy that would reach the level of 
"substantial economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
For the reasons provided below, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the Dhanasar analytical framework. We have considered evidence related to the Petitioner's proposed 
activities as a public relations specialist within unidentified U.S. businesses or as a consultant. 4 The 
Petitioner has not shown how the public relations services he intends to provide would have broader 
implications in the field of public relations or business reputation risk management. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that he has submitted documentation sufficient to corroborate the 
economic benefits of his proposed endeavor through his personal statements submitted with the 
petition and the RFE response. However, the Petitioner did not show that his initial proposed endeavor 
4 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. Without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation 
attributable to his future work, the record does not show that any benefits to the U.S. regional or 
national economy resulting from his public relations services would reach the level of "substantial 
positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. In addition, while the Petitioner 
contends that his proposed endeavor will create cross-border financial initiatives between the U.S. and 
Brazil, he has not shown, for example, that the prospective impact of the public relations services 
performed by him would represent a significant share of the public relations services market or offered 
projections on the amount of foreign direct investment likely to be generated. 
Further, the Petitioner has not supported a claim that his initial proposed endeavor is likely to, for 
instance, introduce innovations that may have broader implications in the public relations or business 
reputation risk management field. Although the proposed endeavor may benefit the client companies 
and individuals that engage the Petitioner's services, the record does not sufficiently show that such 
benefits, either individually or cumulatively, would rise 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. As the Director 
noted, the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed 
endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact. 
We also stated in Dhanasar 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. at 890. Here, the Petitioner has 
not offered sufficient evidence identifying the area where his initial proposed endeavor would operate; 
that it is economically depressed; that his company would employ a significant population of workers 
in that area; or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels or business activity. 
Moreover, in his personal statements and appellate brief, the Petitioner emphasized his professional 
experience in the field. The record also contains recommendation letters from former colleagues and 
his employer in Brazil. While important, the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his academic and 
professional career primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts 
the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. The issue here is whether the 
specific endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first 
prong. A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor 
cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past accomplishments, just as it cannot be inferred based 
on general claims about the importance of a given field or industry. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided an expert opinion letter from an adjunct professor 
of business, entrepreneurship, and sports management atl Much of the letter discusses 
the Petitioner's work experience as a business manager and public relations specialist in Brazil with 
______ In addressing the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he describes the fiscal 
landscape in Brazil and the current market challenges for foreign companies doing business there. The 
letter concludes that "as a seasoned Business Manager and Public Relations Consultant who possesses 
an intimate knowledge of the Corporate Communication field in Brazil and other International 
markets, there is no doubt that he would work in the United States in an area of substantial merit and 
5 
national importance." However, the author does not indicate how the Petitioner's Professional Plan 
& Statement supports a determination that the initial proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, or how it has national 
implications within the field of public relations or business reputation risk management. 
We observe that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding a noncitizen's eligibility. The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id., see also Matter ofD-R-
' 25 I&N Dec. 445, 460 n.13 (BIA 2011) (discussing the varying weight that may be given expert 
testimony based on relevance, reliability, and the overall probative value). Here, much of the content 
of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national 
importance of the Petitioner's initial proposed endeavor. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 
meets the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest framework. Because the Petitioner has not 
established his proposed endeavor has national importance, he is not eligible for a national interest 
waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive 
of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach, and hereby reserve, the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding his eligibility under the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude he has not demonstrated eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6