dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting And Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2023 In Re: 28289619 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant and business operations specialist, seeks second preference classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 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. While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term 
"national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions and states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, 
grant a petition if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit 
and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; 
and, (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish any of the 
three required prongs of the Dhanasar framework and therefore did not establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
As to the fustDhanasar prong, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work 
as a business operations specialist has substantial merit but not national importance. After a thorough 
review of the evidence in the record- including the Petitioner's professional plan, educational 
documents and certifications, letters of support, advisory opinion, and the industry reports and 
articles-the Director found that the evidence primarily relates to either documenting the Petitioner's 
work experience and background or providing general information about the field of business 
operations . The Director concluded that this was insufficient to establish the national importance of 
the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor. The Director noted that a proposed endeavor should be more 
specific than a general occupation, because in establishing national importance the relevant 
consideration is not the importance of the overall occupation or industry, but rather the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Therefore, the Director stated, a petitioner should 
offer details not only as to what their occupation normally involves, but what type of work the 
petitioner proposes to undertake within that occupation, which the Petitioner did not do. The Director 
also found that the evidence in the record relating to the Petitioner's work experience and background 
did not help explain the proposed endeavor or support its national importance. Rather, the Director 
concluded, this evidence primarily relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which 
shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the petitioner and whether they are well-positioned to 
advance it. 
Additionally, the Director found that the Petitioner's plan to establish and operate his own company­
a plan which was submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE)-was not part of 
the proposed endeavor as described in the initial petition. As such, the Director decided, the plan 
would not be considered in analyzing the endeavor's importance, because a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing, and USCIS does not consider material changes made to a petition after 
its filing. 1 Moreover, the Director found that even if the material changes to the endeavor were 
considered, the Petitioner did not establish that the company's potential prospective impact would rise 
to the level of national importance. After thorough review, consideration, and analysis, the Director 
similarly concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he is well-positioned to advance the 
proposed endeavor nor that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States.2 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director did not "give due regard" to the evidence in the 
record or apply the appropriate preponderance of the evidence standard. The Petitioner makes general, 
conclusory assertions as to his eligibility, such as stating that his proposed endeavor "is national in 
scope, as his professional activities relate to a matter of national importance and impact, particularly 
because they generate substantial ripple effects upon key business activities on behalf of the United 
States" ( emphasis in original). The Petitioner claims that his experience in the field, his certifications, 
and his plan to establish his company will benefit the United States on a national level and therefore 
establish the national importance of his endeavor. 
Although the Petitioner makes the general assertion that the Director imposed a higher standard of 
proof and did not properly consider the evidence in the record, the Petitioner does not discuss the 
evidence in the record with specificity, does not describe how it was disregarded by the Director, and 
does not attempt to address or overcome the Director's specific conclusions regarding the insufficiency 
of the evidence. For example, although the Petitioner claims on appeal that his business plan and 
proposed company establish the national importance of the endeavor, the Petitioner does not address 
the Director's finding that this plan represents a material change to his endeavor nor explain why this 
plan should be considered part of his endeavor as initially described. Additionally, we note that on 
appeal the Petitioner again primarily discusses his work experience and background as establishing 
the national importance of his endeavor, without addressing the Director's finding that this evidence 
1 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l ), (12); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 T&N Dec. 45, 49 (1971 ). 
2 Because we agree with the Director's conclusions as to the national importance element of the first Dhanasar prong, and 
because, as we discuss below, this is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we need not summarize the Director's decision 
as to the second and third prongs here. 
2 
relates to the second Dhanasar prong and does not help establish the specific endeavor nor 
demonstrate its national importance. 
Following review of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and decision regarding 
the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 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 the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight 
circuit courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long 
as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Director's decision thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and analyzed the Petitioner's documentation 
consistent with our precedent decision in Matter of Dhanasar. On appeal, rather than specifically 
identifying any errors in law or fact in the decision, the Petitioner merely makes broad assertions that 
the Director did not properly analyze the evidence and that he has established eligibility. These general 
assertions, however, do not overcome the basis for the denial, including the material change to the 
proposed endeavor, and are insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest 
waiver. 
Because the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, he has not demonstrated eligibility for a 
national interest waiver. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the second 
or third Dhanasar prongs. 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where the applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3