dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2024 In Re: 30136179 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner is a director of tourism for I I an office of I IMinistry of 
Commerce, Industry, and Tourism. She seeks classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2). The Petitioner 
also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for: (1) classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and 
(2) the national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal under 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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, 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. Once a petitioner 
demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 
Dhanasar states that 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). 
• 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Since 2007, the Petitioner has worked for I I In 2012, she began working in the United 
States as an A-2 nonimmigrant employee of a foreign government, first as a senior specialist at 
office, and then, starting in 2016, as director of tourism at its I loffice. 
We will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not met the requirements for the national interest 
waiver. Because this issue is, by itself, sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal, we will 
reserve argument on the separate question of whether the Petitioner has established eligibility as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, the arts, or business. 2 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The first Dhanasar 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 
dete1mining whether the proposed endeavor has national impo1iance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We look for broader implications. An 
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 889-890. 
The Petitioner must establish the substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed 
endeavor; it cannot suffice for the Petitioner to establish the overall importance of a particular subject, 
occupation, or field. 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. See, generally, 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.5(D)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not provided enough details about 
the proposed endeavor to establish its substantial merit. We agree, as explained below. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that her proposed endeavor is "to continue her service to the cruise 
industry in thel IThe Petitioner's initial submission included what 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-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). 
2 
she called "evidence of the substantial merit and national importance of international tourism, 
maritime security, and the cruise industry in particular." These terms, however, do not describe the 
Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor. Similarly, an exhibit list submitted with the petition identifies 
various reports about aspects of the cruise industry, under the heading: "The person seeks employment 
in an area of substantial merit and national importance." The first prong of the Dhanasar framework 
requires each petitioner to establish the substantial merit and national importance of the individual's 
specific proposed endeavor, rather than the broad "area" in which the individual intends to work. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted the Petitioner's apparent intention "to continue to 
work for I I but the Director stated that the Petitioner "did not provide a detailed 
description of [her] proposed undertaking or venture." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner offered a more vague description, stating her intention to work 
"in the cruise industry and the tourism sector at large ... in the U.S. public or private sector, eventually 
transitioning to a permanent position related to tourism." The Petitioner stated that she wishes to 
continue to influence "policy design" and to "work with ... multilateral organizations" such as the 
U.S. Agency for International Development and the Pan American Development Foundation, but she 
did not explain how she would be in a position to do so. Her revised description of her proposed 
endeavor includes no mention ofl Iexcept in the context of her past experience. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient details about 
the proposed endeavor to establish its substantial merit. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the 
Director does not appear to have considered that she "has already been employed for several years in 
the United States." The Petitioner's past employment, however, does not suffice to create an inference 
as to her intended future employment, and the specifics of her proposed endeavor. 
The record is ambiguous as to whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would involve continued 
employment withl I In a recommendation letter, the executive director of I 
U.S. office praised the Petitioner's past work, but instead of indicating that the Petitioner would 
continue to work atl Ithe official stated that the Petitioner should have "the opportunity 
to contribute to the US tourism sector." 
The Petitioner asserts that she "provided a detailed description of her proposed endeavor in the RFE 
response." But while the RFE response statement described a number of goals, she did not provide a 
detailed description of what she would do to realize those goals. Instead, she offered the vague and 
open-ended statement that she seeks employment "in the U.S. public or private sector, eventually 
transitioning to a permanent position related to tourism." This general statement potentially 
encompasses a wide range ofpossible occupations, none of which the Petitioner specifically identified. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not described her proposed endeavor in sufficient 
detail to meet her burden of proof to establish the substantial merit of that proposed endeavor. 
Turning to national importance, the Director stated, in the RFE: "In determining national importance, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work," 
but rather "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." The Director stated 
that the Petitioner had "not explained what [her] specific undertaking in the United States" would be. 
3 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted statistics about "the travel industry," but the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor would not encompass the entire industry. The overall importance of tourism and 
travel does not establish the national importance of one specific endeavor within the industry. 
The Petitioner also discussed the benefits of sustainable tourism. This information is more specific 
than statistics about the entire tourism industry, but the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how her 
proposed endeavor would relate to sustainability efforts. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the submitted background materials "speak in broad terms 
and do not reflect the national importance the petitioner's specific endeavor would have." The 
Director also stated that, without more details about the Petitioner's intended employment, "USCIS is 
unable to determine if the petitioner's contribution would have an impact on a local level, and/or if 
her endeavor would have an impact of U.S. national importance." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she showed that her proposed endeavor "rises to a level of national 
importance due to the impact it will have in the field of tourism from economic, cultural, social, 
environmental, and security perspectives." The discussion that follows, however, focuses on general 
statistics and discussion of the Petitioner's past employment with I I Discussion of the 
Petitioner's past work might be relevant to the second Dhanasar prong, relating to whether she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, but her work history does not tell us what that endeavor 
would be, and whether that specific endeavor would have national importance. 
In terms of future plans, the Petitioner discussed aspirations such as "furthering the goals of sustainable 
tourism" but did not explain how her proposed endeavor would achieve those aims. As noted above, 
the Petitioner's discussion of the proposed endeavor did not detail any specific employment plans or 
even differentiate between the "public or private sector." 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided a consistent and detailed description of what her 
proposed endeavor would entail. Without that information, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has 
met her burden of proof to establish the national importance of her specific future endeavor. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof to show that she 
satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar national interest test. Detailed discussion of the remaining 
prongs cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and 
third prongs. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not provided enough information and evidence to identify a specific proposed 
endeavor and establish its substantial merit and national importance. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as a matter of 
discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4