dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Training And Development Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22149842 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 09, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a training and development manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification 
as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts 
or business, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 
classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner demonstrates : (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) 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. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not 
establish that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor or that a waiver of 
the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest. Accordingly, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts her eligibility , arguing that the Director 
did not review the evidence under the proper standard of proof and erred in the decision. In these 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. 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) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver .... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 10l{a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i i). 
2 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) 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. See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Underlying Employment Classification 
The Director did not provide any analysis or specific determination regarding whether the Petitioner 
established that she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability. Based upon the record as currently constructed, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. 
1. Advanced Degree Professional 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of letters from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
The Petitioner provided evidence of a "bacharelado" in law, which she earned after a program of study 
in Brazil from 1999 to 2003. In other academic documents, this course of study is also referred to as a 
"bacharelado" in legal and social sciences. She also provided a copy of her certificate for a course of 
study called "MBA in Strategic Management of People," which she earned in 2016. In addition, the 
record contains certificates of completion for various trainings and individual courses, such as "Time 
Management," "Maritime Legislation Course for HR Professionals," and "Leadership Training for 
Supervisors," among others. 
To support a finding that she qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner provided an 
academic and experience evaluation from senior evaluator.I I on behalf of I I 
I IAlthoughl I stated that the courses completed and the number of credit hours 
earned indicate the U.S. equivalency of her education, he offered little explanation of the Petitioner's 
3 
courses and credit hours, nor did he explain how they are the equivalent of a U.S. education. For instance, 
I lstated that he converted foreign academic hours based on the assumption that the average 
number of credits for one full year of academic study in the United States is 30 to 34 semester hours. 
However, the Petitioner's academic records regarding her foreign bachelor's degree do not clearly 
indicate how many academic hours comprised the ten semesters she completed for the "bacharelado" in 
law. In addition, the Petitioner's transcript reflects a different grading system than that which is normally 
used in the United States andl I offers no acknowledgement of the Petitioner's grades or any 
analysis explaining what they are the equivalent of in U.S. academic grades. 
Regarding the Petitioner's course of study called "MBA in Strategic Management of People," 
I ldid not provide any specific analysis of how this course of study leads to the foreign equivalent 
of a U.S. master's degree. The Petitioner's academic record indicates that she earned a "specialization 
level (lato sensu)," but it is not apparent from either the documents or the evaluation provided whether 
this could be considered the equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. As such,I I generalized 
conclusions are insufficient to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education. We may, in 
our discretion, use an evaluation of a person's foreign education as an advisory opinion. Matter of 
Sea, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 817, 820 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with 
other information or is in anyway questionable, we may discount or give less weight to that evaluation. 
Id. Here, we question the accuracy ofl conclusions, as he did not provide sufficient 
analysis to support them. Accordingly, we conclude that this evaluation is of little probative value in 
this matter. 
Based on the information contained in the record, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish the 
U.S. equivalency of her foreign education in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The 
Petitioner should be prepared to address this evidentiary shortcoming in any of her future filings. 
Nevertheless, we reviewed the AACRAO EDGE database to determine whether the Petitioner's 
foreign education is comparable to any U.S. degree. The AACRAO EDGE database is a reliable 
resource concerning the U.S. equivalencies of foreign education. See generally American Association 
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Electronic Database for Global Education, 
https://www.aacrao.org/edge (last visited Sept. 8, 2022). Although the database reflects that a 
"bacharelado" may be a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, it does not indicate that the 
"specialization level (lato sensu)," is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree. Rather, the 
database suggests that the Petitioner may have completed a graduate program in which she received 
graduate credits leading to a professional certificate, but not necessarily leading to a graduate degree. 
Id. 
Moreover, the evidence provided is insufficient to conclude that she has at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. First, the employment letter from 
I I only stated the titles of the positions the Petitioner held from 2005 to 2018. 
As the letter does not discuss the Petitioner's duties, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner's work 
was progressively responsible in nature. Additionally, based upon the titles of the Petitioner's 
positions, it appears that she gained experience in the area of human resources, which differs from the 
specialty of law or legal and social sciences, the area in which she earned her foreign equivalent 
bachelor's degree. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner possesses an advanced degree, 
nor can we conclude that the Petitioner has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree followed 
by five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
4 
2. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
We reviewed the entirety of the record and have considered the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability. We conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the six criteria and 
therefore we need not reach a final merits determination. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not qualify as 
an individual of exceptional ability. While we may not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we 
have reviewed and considered each one. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award 
from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional 
ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
Although the academic documentation in the record combined with the information found in the 
AACRAO EDGE database is sufficient to conclude that the Petitioner completed education that is the 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, the record does not show that the Petitioner earned this degree in 
the area of exceptional ability. As the Petitioner proposes to work in the field of human resources 
management, we cannot conclude that her bachelor's degree in law or in legal and social sciences is 
sufficiently related to human resources as to be in the "area of exceptional ability." Based upon the 
evidence provided, the Petitioner has not persuasively established that she has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least 
ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(i i)(B) 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner provided an employment letter from 
which stated the titles of the positions the Petitioner held from 2005 to 2018. However, this letter 
does not indicate whether the Petitioner's experience was full-time. In addition, the employment letter 
and the Petitioner's resume contain inconsistent information concerning her employment during the 
period of 2005 to 2008. The Petitioner's resume indicates that she worked as a receptionist for 
I from 2005 to 2007 and that she worked as a human resources analyst from 2007 to 2008. 
By contrast, the employment letter stated that she worked as a human resources assistant from 2005 
to 2008 and does not mention the Petitioner's work as an analyst or receptionist. The Petitioner must 
resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead 
us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfied this 
criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
The Petitioner provided evidence that she received an "identity card of the lawyer" from the Brazilian 
Bar Association's Sectional Council of I The associated documents in the record suggest 
that the Petitioner took and passed the Brazilian bar exam. However, the Petitioner's identity card and 
membership with the bar was canceled in June 2018, prior to the filing of the 1-140 petition. USCIS 
5 
regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner had a 
license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession at the time of filing. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that a license or certification is required to practice the 
profession of human resources management. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates 
exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
The Petitioner provided a website printout of salary data for the position of "training supervisor" in Brazil. 
Although the printout states that the data provided is from October 2017 to October 2018, it is unclear if 
the salaries listed correspond to an hourly, monthly, annual, or some other salary timeframe. The 
Petitioner does not indicate for which professional level she qualifies, such as "trainee," 'junior," "full," 
"senior," or "master," nor has she provided sufficient explanations for how such determinations are made. 
In addition, she has not demonstrated the size of the company for which she worked during the relevant 
time frame, such as "little," "average," or "great," or how such size determinations are made. As such, 
the Petitioner has not established which figures in the chart apply to her. 
The Petitioner's paystubs and tax documentation indicate she received a steady income from I I 
__ across several years. However, as stated, it is not apparent where the Petitioner's salary falls 
on the salary data chart. Even if that were established and the evidence demonstrated that the Petitioner 
received a salary that exceeded certain figures on the chart, it would still only provide a very limited 
picture of the Petitioner's salary in comparison to others in the profession. In other words, even if the 
Petitioner provided sufficient evidence that her salary was in fact higher than other training supervisors, 
it would simply establish that she earned a higher-than-average salary. The evidence does not suggest 
that the salary she earned was due to her ability. 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner commands a salary that demonstrates exceptional 
ability. For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish eligibility under this criterion. Therefore, she has not 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, 
governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) 
We reviewed the entire record for evidence of recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or 
business organizations. We acknowledge evidence that includes, but is not limited to, certificates of 
completed trainings and courses, a national interest waiver eligibility evaluation, and numerous letters of 
support from coworkers and employers. As previously stated, while we may not discuss each piece of 
evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
Although the letters of support indicate that her professional acquaintances hold her in high regard 
personally and professionally, as well as that she has received recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions within the companies she has worked for, this evidence does not suggest that the 
Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or or field. 
To illustrate with several examplesl la safety superintendent at provided 
examples of the Petitioner's achievements within projects that involved training, budget, and customer 
service, among others. However.I did not provide sufficient detail concerning how these 
internal accomplishments constitute recognition for achievements of significant contributions to the field 
of human resources management. In addition, I I mentions that the Petitioner's "unique 
methodology" will serve the national interest of the United States, but he does not provide any detail or 
explanation of what her unique methodology is. Similarly.I I a project manager atl I 
offered specific instances of how the Petitioner performed her job well; however, simply 
performing well as an employee does not establish exceptional ability. Additionally] I letter does 
not contain sufficient details concerning how the Petitioner's work constitutes recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field, as opposed to the individual companies 
and clients for whom she worked. Overall, the authors of the letters explained how the Petitioner's 
accomplishments were important to the Petitioner's employers, but the authors did not support their 
conclusions that such accomplishments constitute recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions to the industry or field. 
Likewise, the documentation suggesting that the Petitioner received a monetary bonus from her employer 
and numerous positive performance appraisals serves to reinforce a finding that she successfully 
performed her job and that she can accomplish internal work assignments. However, a company's 
recognition of her as an important and effective employee is insufficient to establish that she has received 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. 
We acknowledge the industry reports and articles concerning the field of human resources management, 
including those that explain what human resources management is, its increasing importance in the 
market, and the effects of labor shortages on human resources, among other topics. Nevertheless, these 
articles and reports do not mention the Petitioner specifically, or how she has impacted the field or 
industry such that we can conclude she has received recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions. Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish that she has received 
recognition for achievements and significant contributions in that field. 
In the Petitioner's professional plans and statements, she offered background on the importance of human 
resources management, the experience she has gained in the field, and how she would use this experience 
to benefit companies. However, the Petitioner did not explain, for instance, how her techniques differ or 
are better than the human resources management techniques already used. Although she may be able to 
adapt and customize her human resources management to suit the needs of her employer, this does not 
support a conclusion that she has personally developed anything from which others in the field or industry 
could benefit. Even if the Petitioner offered evidence to support a finding that she developed techniques, 
innovations, or methodologies, this would still not establish how others in the field or industry would 
know about and benefit from what she developed such that the Petitioner's work would constitute 
achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field. 
7 
Based on the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established how her professional accomplishments 
extend beyond her individual employers and clients. While the Petitioner may be a valuable employee 
with an impressive record of success, her professional performance does not represent achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
Summary 
The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria 
for exceptional ability at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner therefore has not established her 
eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As previously 
outlined, the Petitioner must show that she either possesses exceptional ability or is an advanced degree 
professional before we reach the question of the national interest waiver. We conclude that the evidence 
does not establish that the Petitioner meets the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability or that she is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. As the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the issue of the 
national interest waiver is moot. The waiver is available only to foreign workers who otherwise qualify 
for classification under section 203(b)(2){A) of the Act. Further analysis of her eligibility under the 
prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose. Nevertheless, the wording in the 
Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong is somewhat 
confusing and can be interpreted as contradictory. Therefore, we provide analysis under this prong simply 
to lend clarity. 
B. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
The Petitioner stated on her Form 1-140 that as a training and development manager, she intends to 
"[p]lan, direct, or coordinate the training and development activities and staff of an organization." 
Other documents in the record describe her proposed endeavor as working for companies to provide 
advice and guidance on the growth and development of their human resources departments, including 
in the area of developing cross-border relations involving Brazil and the rest of Latin America. In her 
initial professional plan and statement, she explained that she will help U.S. companies improve their 
strategies and practices, as well as help them with people and business management. She also stated 
that through her proposed endeavor, she will seize market and investment opportunities for U.S. 
companies operating or planning to operate outside the United States and especially in Brazil. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that the record suggested 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would benefit companies but that it did not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the endeavor would benefit the broader field as a whole. In response, the Petitioner provided an 
updated professional plan and statement, as well additional explanations of her proposed endeavor. 
She described her endeavor as continuing her career as a training and development manager "with a 
special focus on administrative management, human resources management, negotiating employment 
law, hiring, strategic management, and strategic partnerships." She also plans to work for U.S. 
companies in need of corporate enhancement solutions, such as workforce productivity, human 
resources management analysis, and operational improvements. The Petitioner stated that her 
endeavor will be an essential component in supporting, advancing, and developing business 
8 
development projects within the United States, including by advising companies in distinctive 
industries on the best human resources operational processes to follow. 
Regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Petitioner claimed that her work will 
have broad implications for the U.S. business market, specifically through the implementation of 
improvement platforms and corporate measures that allow for workforce productivity and 
dependability. The Petitioner offered examples of her past successes in order to demonstrate how she 
might produce similar results through her proposed endeavor. For instance, she stated that she has 
increased the professionalization of the services a company provided which resulted in the expansion 
of the company's market share. To illustrate further, the Petitioner stated that she developed pipelines 
for new market segments when searching for new talent, developed campaigns and strategies to 
increase the quality of candidates, and developed professional training. Because she plans to improve 
business functions, the Petitioner expects that she would be able to increase businesses' economic 
production. She stated that her proposed endeavor will make companies better and more profitable, 
improve working conditions and wages, and boost the business ecosystem productivity and overall 
capability. The Petitioner claimed that her proposed endeavor will substantially benefit the United 
States in the following ways: 
• U.S. job creation, considering that business productivity makes companies produce more 
goods and services, which leads to hiring more workers; 
• Providing effective business advice within multinational environments, in line with updated 
global business strategy trends; and 
• Providing unparalleled and full-service human resources and business regulatory compliance 
consulting services to U.S. companies, including advice and implementation methods. 
She also stated that her endeavor would expand business, income, profit, and U.S. markets, as well as 
create competitive advantages for U.S. companies. Her endeavor would contribute to the successful 
search of new employees and the achievement of company goals, favoring economic and financial 
success, which would generate jobs and increase the gross domestic product (GDP). 
In our de nova review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. In Dhanasar, we noted that "we look for broader implications" 
of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national impmiance for example, 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
at 889. We also evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance 
requirement by looking to evidence that documents the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
To illustrate, "[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. 
Although the Petitioner claimed that she would create jobs and improve the economy, the evidence 
she provided does not support such a conclusion. While her endeavor may directly impact the hiring, 
profit, professionalism, and growth of a particular company, the evidence does not suggest how these 
benefits would reach the field of human resource management overall or have an impact so broad as 
to affect the economy or create a significant number of jobs. Although her work may generate positive 
impacts in hiring, developing, and training employees, as well as improve management processes and 
9 
professionalize human resource functions, this impact appears to be localized within the company(ies) 
where she will work. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how helping the individual 
companies and clients that hire her would result in impact on a broad scale rising to the level of national 
importance. For instance, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that increasing the profitability and 
enabling the expansion of a particular company would affect the GDP. It is insufficient to claim an 
endeavor has national importance or will create a broad impact without providing evidence to 
corroborate such claims. The Petitioner must support her assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
We reviewed the additional reference letters and articles provided in response to the RFE. 
I I provided examples of what the Petitioner accomplished tori I in the past, 
but he did not suggest that these accomplishments impacted the field of human resources management 
or that the success of the company resulted in significant job creation, tax revenue, or economic growth 
for the United States on a scale that rises to the level of national importance. Similarly, the letter from 
________ a retired I I human resources employee, noted the Petitioner's 
influence on specific projects and offered highlights of the Petitioner's career, but she did not explain 
how the proposed endeavor would have national importance. The submission of reference letters 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters so as to determine whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). See also Matter of V-K-, 24 l&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) 
(expert opinion testimony does not necessarily purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Overall, the 
reference letters do not sufficiently address the proposed endeavor or explain why it has national 
importance. 
We examined the articles concerning human resources management and consulting, the importance of 
foreign language skills in the U.S. job market, and the challenges related to talent management; 
however, as previously explained, none of these articles discuss the proposed endeavor or demonstrate 
its impact. We acknowledge that the field of human resource management is important; however, this 
is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. In determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the 
individual will work. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes 
to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec at 889. 
Turning now to the advisory opinion from I an adjunct associate professor at 
University, we read that the Petitioner's endeavor has national importance because the additional 
business-to-business activity it creates would have the indirect effect of creating new jobs and 
improving wages and salaries, which then allows for increased household spending and consumption. 
I lopined that the Petitioner's endeavor will also have a multiplier impact in the areas of 
income and revenue. He explained that the increased business activity would create more business 
income, which would lead to more state and federal tax revenue, as well as personal income. While 
we acknowledge and understand how basic economics function, the record does not evidence a 
sufficiently direct connection between the proposed endeavor activities and either job creation, tax 
revenue, or increased household spending. Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any 
projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work, the record does not 
show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's endeavor 
10 
would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 
890. As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by the Petitioner as 
advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, we will reject 
an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in 
anyway questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert opinion letters is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here, I I offered numerous conclusions 
concerning the national importance of the proposed endeavor but insufficient evidence to corroborate 
them. 
The Petitioner does not suggest that her human resources techniques are unavailable in the United 
States or that the quality of her human resources management capabilities is better than that which is 
already offered in the United States. Even if she had demonstrated this, it would not establish how 
her procedures and techniques would be available to individual human resource managers or to the 
public at large. Similarly, 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. 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec at 893. Here, we conclude that although the individual clients and companies 
may benefit from her services, she has not offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate how this 
individual benefit rises to the level of national importance or would impact the field more broadly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges no specific error but rather contends that the Director examined the 
evidence and applied a higher and stricter standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence 
standard. In support, she largely restates the arguments already presented and relies upon evidence 
previously submitted. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that 
although the Petitioner asserted that her proposed endeavor has national importance, she offered little 
corroborative evidence or explanation to support her claims. While the Petitioner provided a 
significant volume of evidence, eligibility for the benefit sought is not determined by the quantity of 
evidence alone but also the quality. Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N 
Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). The Petitioner bears the responsibility of ensuring that the record 
demonstrates how she qualifies for a national interest waiver. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of her 
proposed endeavor. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that she is eligible for the underlying classification as an advanced 
degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability. Furthermore, the documentation in the 
record does not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor as required by the first prong 
of the Dhanasar precedent decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in 
Dhanasar would therefore serve no meaningful purpose. 
Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the second and third 
Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
11 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12