The Petitioner, an attorney, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/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).
USCIS denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she bad not established 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 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
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.
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) ofthe Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 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, 1 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.
Analysis
The instant petition is filed on March 21, 2025. The Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a professional mediator through her company, ~-------------------~ I Ibased on her many years of experience as an attorney in Venezuela. 2 Beyond the decision by USCIS, 3 we first note that the Petitioner did not provide required documentation per 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii), either Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, or the corresponding sections J, K, and L of its successor form, ET A Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Although the Petitioner need not submit a complete Form ETA-750 or ETA Form 9089 that has been certified by the Department of Labor, the specified parts of the either form (relating to her credentials and experience) are required when applying for the national interest waiver. Here, the record does not include the required forms and therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted a complete petition.
Furthermore, we agree with USCIS that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility under the first prong ofDhanasar. The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Id. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id.
Based upon the evidence concerning the high cost of litigation and increased number of mediation cases in court systems to resolve legal disputes and conflicts, the Petitioner's plan to offer mediation services is of substantial merit. However, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance. Here, the record does not sufficiently establish that her business would have broader implications in the field of alternative dispute resolution or mediation, or that it would have a potential prospective impact on the national economy.No broader implications shown
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted her professional plan to create a 'Training and Consulting Center specialized in conflict resolution and social welfare" with the following approaches:
- Coaching of mediators and professionals in advanced conflict resolution techniques
- Supporting migrant communities with cultural adaptation and emotional health strategies
- Development ofmindfulness and stress management programs to strengthen human well-being in work and community environments
- Creation of strategic alliances with institutions to promote innovative solutions in mediation and social welfare.
The Petitioner claimed that her work "responds to a critical need in the U.S." and "aligns with the national interest by strengthening alternative mechanisms to litigation, reducing the burden on the judicial system and promoting more equitable access to justice." But the evidence included with the initial filing did not sufficiently support these claims or otherwise demonstrate the endeavor's prospective and broad impact to the region, nation, or the field of mediation. Instead, it largely consisted of the Petitioner's background information relating to whether she is well-positioned to advance her endeavor under Dhanasar' s second prong, such as her biographical documents, academic credentials, resume, employment letters, membership certificates, recognitions from her past employment.
In her response to the request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted additional documents which included two recommendation letters and materials regarding her crnsultingl company,! Isuch as a copyright request on her mediation methodologies submitted on , 2025;1 Iarticles of organization filed onl I2025; a letter datedl I2025 from the Internal Revenue Service assigning I Ian employer identification number; I Ioperating agreement showing that it was formed in Florida o~ I2025; andl Ibusiness bank account information letter signed onl 12025.
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish national importance of her endeavor and USCIS erroneously interpreted the scope of her business "as local, without recognizing the broader national and replicable nature of my programs." The Petitioner also offers new evidence on appeal, an expert opinion letter from J-T-, an immigration attorney and business law specialist, and contends that this letter demonstrates her endeavor's national importance. We do not find the Petitioner's claims persuasive.
USCIS properly determined that the Petitioner's role as an entrepreneur in the field of mediation "appears to be localized and would be of most benefit to her own company." The evidence submitted here does not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner's mediation techniques represent advancement or innovation in such a way that it has national or even global implications within the field. In Dhanasar, "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances." Id.
Aside from the Petitioner's own claims, the record, does not corroborate that the Petitioner's knowledge or methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States such that they would have national implications in the field. For example, the Petitioner included a screenshot of U.S. Copyright Office's website to show that she filed a copyright registration application for her "Conscious Mediation" programs, but such copyright registration alone does not automatically show her endeavor's national impact without other corroborating evidence of wide acceptance and distribution of her mediation programs in the field. In addition, the copyright registration (filed on I I2025) postdates the filing of the petition and is not probative in demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter p. 4 ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175 (Assoc.Not eligible at the time of filing Comm'r 1998) (stating that a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the self-petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts).
The Petitioner further asserted that her "advanced negotiation techniques and interdisciplinary approaches that can transform the way conflicts are managed in various areas of American society" and included a testimonial letter from a client who attests to utilizing her "online Conscious Mediation sessions" and a former work colleague who praises her professional abilities and moral character. However, the letters of recommendation do not specifically address the innovative nature of her methods or explain how her future endeavor will broadly impact the field.Proposed endeavor too vague While individual clients may benefit from her consulting services or mediation sessions, the Petitioner has not offered any evidence or persuasive explanation for how this individual benefit rises to the level of national importance or will impact the field more broadly.
We also reviewed the expert letter submitted with the appeal. The expert letter reiterates the Petitioner's educational and employment background and opines on the importance of the profession and the field of mediation without offering persuasive details concerning the Petitioner's endeavor or its impact extending beyond clients that she will serve.Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value. See 17 5 6, Inc. v. US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). In Dhanasar, we gave significant weight to "probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests" and "detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest" in Dr. Dhanasar's specific research. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 892. Here, the Petitioner has not provided similar evidence, such as the type of expert opinion evidence or letters from government entities, academia, or other industry representatives detailing how her specific endeavor impacts a matter that is a subject of national initiatives or discussing their interest in promoting the use of the Petitioner's innovation or solutions. Additionally, we evaluated the Petitioner's claims regarding her business' economic impact and her endeavor's "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects" for any region or the nation. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The Petitioner's professional plan submitted with the initial filing indicated that her business would generate an annual income of $430,000 in the first year by providing mediation sessions, conflict resolution courses and certifications, and conflict prevention consulting services for individuals and companies. It further estimated that her business' annual income would reach $522,668 in the fifth year, resulting in net income of $233,134. However, the plan lacks necessary analysis and the basis for these projections, and the Petitioner has not established that, even if the projections were well supported, this level of activity would be sufficient to show a substantial positive economic effect.Plan or projections not corroborated Although the Petitioner provided an updated business plan with her RFE response, it does not contain any other supporting analysis or figures regarding the growth of the business, staffing projections, revenues and tax payments, or other information to demonstrate that the company will provide a substantial positive economic effect.
Considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner did not adequately support or demonstrate how her future work rises to the level ofhaving national importance within the field. The record does not show that the specific work the Petitioner proposes to undertake will offer original p. 5 innovations to advance the field, or that it will sufficiently extend beyond her clientele to affect the regional or national economy more broadly. For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed endeavor is ofnational importance, and she therefore has not met the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. Since the identified basis is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion on the Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). In addition, we reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner is eligible for the underlying EB-2 immigrant visa classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability.
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that she has not established eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance ofa Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.