dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Quality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 28456171 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a quality systems specialist, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. 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 EB-2 immigrant classification. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner's endeavor would have national importance. 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 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. 1 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. Section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS 
may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
(1) the noncitizen 's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the 
1 The Director conclud ed that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional , which 
the record supports . 
noncitizen is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would 
benefit the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The first prong of the Dhanasar test, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
When determining whether a proposed endeavor would have national importance, we examine the 
specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. For example, an endeavor may qualify if it has national 
implications within a particular field, or if it has significant potential to have a substantial economic 
effect, especially in an economically depressed area. Id. 
The Petitioner states that her endeavor will be to work as an "expert quality management systems 
(QMS) consultant for American businesses throughout the U.S." The Director found that while this 
endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish how its 
impact would extend beyond its clients to have national importance. Therefore, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar test or qualify for a national interest 
waiver. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief contending that her endeavor will have national importance 
because it "has the potential to improve industry performance across various sectors" and has 
"potential prospective impact on the national economy." Upon review, the Petitioner has not 
overcome the Director's denial ground, for the reasons below. 
An endeavor may have national importance if it has national implications in a specific field, such as 
those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. Id. The 
Petitioner states on appeal that "[ e ]nsuring quality and adherence to regulation not only helps 
businesses to avoid the setbacks and monetary losses associated with product recalls but also promotes 
consumer safety," noting that recalled products in industries such as drugs, food, and electronics can 
cause illness, injury, and death, as well as exacting a heavy economic toll. While we acknowledge 
the importance of quality management in these industries, this relates to the endeavor's merit, which 
is a separate consideration under Dhanasar. The relevant question when determining an endeavor's 
national importance is not the importance of the industry or profession where the Petitioner will work, 
but the specific impact of that proposed endeavor. Id. 
For example, in Dhanasar, the noncitizen's work as a science teacher was found to have substantial 
merit, but did not qualify him under the first prong because the evidence did not show how that work 
would impact the field of science education more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the record similarly does 
not establish that the Petitioner's endeavor will affect product recalls or safety on a nationally 
important scale. 
As an example of her endeavor's impact, the Petitioner resubmits a letter from a client company, which 
states that the Petitioner has assisted in "improving the customer services process" and "[g]athering 
2 The Director did not provide any analysis of whether the Petitioner meets the second or third prongs of the Dhanasar 
test. 
2 
documents from our suppliers and related act1v1t1es . . . to assure that they comply with our 
requirements and needs in order to implement effective quality systems for the company." The letter 
further states that in the future, the Petitioner will work on automating their order placement process 
and "[c]ompleting and improving our quality management system documents." When describing the 
impact of the Petitioner's work, the letter states that it has "undoubtedly improved the efficiency of 
our processes and reduced our product returns and waste." 
First, we note that while this client is a food company, there is no indication in the letter that the 
Petitioner's work has had or will have any relationship to food safety. The letter does not specify what 
suppliers the Petitioner gathered documents from, what "requirements and needs" those documents 
implicated, or what types of quality management systems the petitioner's work will involve in the 
future. Furthermore, when evaluating an endeavor's potential impact, we look for broader 
implications. Id. at 889. Here, there is insufficient information about the size and prominence of the 
client company to establish that the Petitioner's work for them has the potential to impact the broader 
food industry on a national level. 
The remainder of the record also does not document how the impact of the Petitioner's work will 
extend beyond her clients to have broader implications. The Petitioner's business plan indicates her 
company will target small businesses as customers, and that by the end of its fifth year of operations, 
it will have 15 long-term clients. She has not provided documentation specifying how her work for 
15 small companies is more likely than not to impact the food industry, or any other industry, on a 
national level. Matter of Chawathe, 19 I&N Dec. at 376 (explaining that the "preponderance of the 
evidence" standard requires petitioners to submit relevant, probative, and credible evidence to show 
the fact to be proven is "probably" true). The Petitioner therefore has not shown how her endeavor 
will potentially lead to an improvement or innovation in her field that rises to the level of national 
importance. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 
Similar concerns apply to the Petitioner's claims regarding her endeavor's economic impact. An 
endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have other substantial positive 
economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may be considered to have national 
importance. Id. at 889. The Petitioner's business plan states that in its fifth year of operations, her 
company will employ two to three workers other than herself: have $360,000 in revenues, and save its 
clients $839,362 in costs. The record also contains materials from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) 
which state that every 100 direct jobs created in the professional, scientific, and technical services 
industry lead to the creation of 418.3 indirect jobs. 3 Therefore, according to the EPI calculation, if the 
Petitioner's company creates three to four full-time jobs, it would lead to the creation of 12.5 to 16.7 
indirect jobs. However, the record does not examine these figures in the context of the local, state, or 
national economy, and so does not establish that the company's business activity would constitute a 
significant economic benefit to the United States, Florida, or any economically depressed region 
through employment levels, business activity, or trade, such that it would rise to the level of national 
importance. 
3 The cover letter the Petitioner submitted with this material states that every 4.3 direct jobs in the industry lead to the 
creation of 15.3 indirect jobs. This appears to be derived from the EPI finding that every $4.3 million in final demand in 
the Petitioner's industry leads to 15.3 indirect jobs. As the Petitioner has not established what amount of final demand her 
company will generate, we will instead refer to the EPI statistics regarding indirect jobs created per 100 direct jobs. 
3 
We farther note that the Petitioner does not provide an adequate basis or supporting evidence for the 
business plan's projections of the company's expenses. For example, while the plan states that the 
company will operate virtually in its first year and will "open a physical office space" in its second 
year of operations, the second-year budget does not account for rent and states that utility expenses 
will be identical to those in the first year. No explanation is provided for how the company will obtain 
a physical office space with no rental costs and no utility expenses beyond those required for a 
company operating virtually. 
Where there are inconsistencies in the evidence, it is the Petitioner's burden to resolve these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not done so here, and has not provided 
sufficient probative, relevant, and credible documentation to establish the scope of her endeavor's 
economic impact. Matter ofChawathe, 19 I&N Dec. at 376. As such, she has not established that her 
endeavor will generate the kinds of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by 
Dhanasar. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
Finally, we acknowledge the petition's documentation of the Petitioner's professional certifications 
and accomplishments. However, these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar test, which 
is concerned with the Petitioner's ability to advance her proposed endeavor. They do not establish 
what potential impact the endeavor would have. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that 
her proposed endeavor would be nationally important. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not established her eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar test, we 
need not address her eligibility under the other two prongs and hereby reserve those issues. 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 alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
The Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4