PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Executive assistant

Business & finance · decided 2024-01-18 · NSC · JAN182024_04B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot met
    Why
    Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 1 See Poursina v. p. 2
  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner established she was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. See in text
  • Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: JAN. 18, 2024 · In Re: 28840762 · Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, an executive assistant, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).

    The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner established she was an advanced degree professional, but had not demonstrated 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. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3 .

    The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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.

    The Petitioner intends to work as an executive assistant for senior partners and chief executive officers at I Iand with the goal of developing further into an event management role.

    The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief that reiterates the same evidence already on record and does not specifically address the Director's grounds for denial. In addition, the appeal brief does not claim any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The Petitioner did not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination.

    We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's substantial merit and national importance claims under the first prong of p. 2 Dhanasar, including her submission of a business plan, an expert opinion letter, and the claimed proposed endeavor.

    As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's explanation of the proposed endeavor in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) significantly departed from the proposed endeavor she indicated in her initial filing. A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner's transfiguration of their proposed endeavor from the initial petition to the response to the RFE introduced significant ambiguity into their proposed endeavor which prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance.

    The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. It is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature ofthe endeavor. Further, on appeal, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence to overcome the Director's issues and concerns.

    Because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 1 Further analysis of her eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 2 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.