dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Well-Being Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 01, 2024 In Re: 32369598 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a well-being consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as finding that the proposed endeavor was not of national 
importance, the Petitioner is not well positioned to advance the endeavor, and that it not would be 
beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
An advanced degree is any U.S. academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above 
that of a bachelor's degree. A U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five 
years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
Exceptional ability means a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 
sciences, arts, or business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A petitioner must initially submit documentation 
that satisfies at least three of six categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). 1 Meeting 
at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. 2 If 
a petitioner does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence 
in its totality shows that they are recognized as having the requisite degree of expertise and will 
substantially benefit the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United 
States. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
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,3 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 found that the Petitioner did not establish that she was a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree as she did not provide a translated version of her transcript for her 
purported bachelor's degree. 4 We agree that the translated transcript has not been submitted and as 
such, the Petitioner has not established that she has the bachelor's degree required for eligibility as an 
advanced degree professional. 5 
The Petitioner also claimed eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. However, because we conclude that she is not eligible for, and does not merit as 
a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver, and this determination is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the issue of her eligibility as an individual 
of exceptional ability. 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); 
1 If these types of evidence do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, a petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence to establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(iii). 
2 USCIS has previously confirmed the applicability of this two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of 
exceptional ability. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
3 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). 
4 In order to show that a petitioner holds an advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by a "[aa ]n official academic 
record" and any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(k)(3)(i); 103.2(b )(3). 
5 The Petitioner has not argued, nor do we observe, that her other degrees qualify as a bachelor's degree. 
2 
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). 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance 
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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
The appeal brief states that the Petitioner's beauty and wellness consultancy firm will "play a crucial role 
in helping the American population achieve their desired wellness outcomes." The evidence provided 
does not demonstrate that this specific endeavor is of national importance. 
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 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[aa ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated 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. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the potential prospective impact of her work. 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. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that her proposed work is nationally important because its 
"contribution to the economy, public health, and overall well-being make it an invaluable part of 
the ... landscape of the U.S. beauty and wellness industry." Yet the brief and the record do not explain 
how the business would impact the overall field more broadly beyond its clients and trainees on the 
level of national importance. The brief generally discusses the growth of the beauty and wellness 
industry and describes that the Petitioner's business will provide training workshops for those in the 
field. It then concludes that because of these trainings, her firm will contribute to the industry's growth 
and advancement. The brief submitted with the initial petition adds that the business will specialize 
in helping clients "overcome physical challenges, achieve their personal goals and improve their 
overall well-being" through a wide range of services, and that its contributions to individuals' well­
being make it nationally important. 
3 
First, we observe that the appeal briefs focus on the beauty and wellness industry's growth and 
economic impact ignores the requirements we set forth in Dhanasar . It is not the importance of the 
field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will 
impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Additionally, the briefs neglect to explain how the business's training of individuals and wellness 
services to individual clients will impact the overall beauty and wellness field at a nationally important 
level. 
The record does not sufficiently demonstrate national importance either. 6 The Petitioner provided a 
report on the U.S. wellness industry's economic growth. 7 This report is of little evidentiary value as 
it does not address the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or how it would have broad implications 
in the beauty and wellness field in a way that implicates national importance. The Petitioner also 
presented her resume, letters of recommendations from associates, educational certificates, licenses, 
employment verification letters, service receipts, and documentation regarding her work history. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner does not explain how this evidence is relevant to national importance as 
it points to the Petitioner's past accomplishments, training, and experiences, not the specific 
endeavor's potential impact in wellness field. Generally, this type of evidence is more appropriate for 
the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Dr. I I a lecturer at I As a 
matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of 
Caron Int '!, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). Nonetheless, 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 any way 
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 the advisory opinion is of little probative value as Dr.
I I evaluation mainly focuses on the importance, size, and growth of the U.S. beauty and 
wellness industry. Dr. I I focus of the importance of the field ignores the requirements in 
Dhanasar that an endeavor's importance is determined by its impact on the field, not the importance 
of the field itself. 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The evaluation also makes the conclusive statement that 
because the Petitioner's will train individuals and will help fill the demand for skilled workers, the 
endeavor is nationally important. However, she neglects to illustrate how the Petitioner's trainings 
will impact the field on nationally important level, beyond her students. Overall, the evaluation does 
not explain how the endeavor would impact the field beyond the company' s clients or how it would 
have an economic impact on par with national importance. From the evidence provided, the Petitioner 
has not established that her proposed endeavor will have a national impact on the beauty and wellness 
industry. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other 
6 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 We note that the Petitioner submitted additional articles, job offers, and educational training documentation after the 
initial filing. However, this evidence originated after the filing of the petition. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility 
requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
4 
substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, may have 
national importance. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Here, however, the business plan does not 
adequately support its projections ofrevenue creation. 
The Petitioner's business plan anticipates the Petitioner's company will generate $57,670 in revenue 
in year one, increasing to $89,995 in year three. Nonetheless, the plan does not explain how these 
forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized, nor does the 
record contain evidence to support the business plan's fmancial projections. The preponderance of 
the evidence standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is probably 
true, where the determination of truth is made based on the factual circumstances of each individual 
case. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See id. Here, the lack of supporting details 
detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan. 
Even if we assumed all the projections in the business plan were accurate, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important. The brief submitted with the petition 
contends that her business will "substantially contribute to the small business sector in the United 
States." However, the Petitioner did not provide documentation to support these statements that the 
company will result in substantial economic growth on the level of national importance. The record 
does not illustrate how generating the revenue projected in the business plan, would have substantial 
positive economic effects on the level of national importance. The Petitioner must support assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The 
Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the 
prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance. Accordingly, 
the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national 
importance. 
In the same way that Dhanasar finds that a classroom teacher's proposed endeavor is not nationally 
important because it will not impact the field more broadly, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor will sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the region 
or nation more broadly. 26 I&N Dec. at 893. She has not shown that benefits to the regional or national 
economy resulting from the Petitioner's undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive 
economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. 
Accordingly, we find that the record does not demonstrate national importance of the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision and the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. As 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 Dhanasar framework. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25 (stating that 
"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 of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7 (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we find 
that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6