dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aquacultural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 29, 2023 In Re: 28962719 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aquacultural engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies 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 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. 
I. LAW 
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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
If a petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then establish 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Id. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions. Dhanasar states that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver 
if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The record supports that conclusion. The remaining issue to be determined on 
appeal 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. 
The Petitioner intends to continue his work as an aquacultural engineer by establishing a consultancy 
company inl IFlorida. A professional plan included in the record describes his proposed 
endeavor as follows: 
I intend to act as an Aquaculture Engineer in the American market, by offering 
consulting services through my own consulting company, for the Commercial 
Aquaculture industries and farms, strongly contributing with my technical knowledge 
and work experience acquired over my 20 years of experience. More specifically, the 
objective is to carry out management activities of production processes in the fish and 
shrimp farming (fattening) industries, as well as in the maturation and hatchery 
industries, and the elaboration of aquaculture projects (based-land, indoor), with water 
recirculation systems (RAS) and elaboration of protocols for the application of rations, 
fertilizers and probiotics, with the aim of optimizing the production of fish and shrimp 
(animal protein) in the American industry. I intend to provide consulting services ... to 
companies in the state of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Minnesota, Alabama, 
Connecticut, and Virginia, which are the states with the largest number of fish and 
seafood aquaculture companies in the United States .... In addition, I intend to work in 
economically underdeveloped regions, with the aim of contributing to the generation 
of jobs and attracting investments to these areas. 
The Director concluded, in part, that while the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, 
the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his endeavor. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national 
importance of his endeavor in order to establish his eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 3 
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 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 USCTS recognizes the importance of progress in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics­
collectively known as STEM. See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.5(D)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
We considered this factor in evaluating the national importance of the Petitioner's imposed endeavor. 
2 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "imposed novel substantive and evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations in contravention of precedent." The Petitioner, 
however, does not identify any unusual requirements imposed, nor does the Petitioner specify how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous.4 The Petitioner also implies, without 
further explanation, that the Director applied a stricter standard of proof than that of preponderance of 
the evidence. 5 The Petitioner asserts that the current evidence of record establishes his eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework, including the national importance of his 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 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]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. Further, to 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 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. Id. at 893. Here, we conclude that 
the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond 
his employees and clients to impact the aquaculture industry more broadly at a level commensurate 
with national importance. 
The Petitioner's appeal brief discusses the aquaculture industry and its potential for growth in the 
United States. Included with the brief are the following documents (several of which were previously 
present in the record): an article discussing farm-raised fish and an annual report on fisheries from 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); an article from Oceana.org about 
imported farm-raised shrimp; a fact sheet describing a White House initiative concerning hunger, 
nutrition, and health; and expert opinion letters discussing the importance of aquaculture and the 
Petitioner's qualifications. A document entitled "Impact Analysis" cites several sources to explain the 
role of fisheries and aquaculture in the global demand for seafood and the growth potential for 
aquaculture in the U.S. market both nationally and for export. The document also provides 
descriptions ofjob positions for which the Petitioner intends to hire employees for his company. While 
this evidence provides insight into the aquaculture industry, it does not illustrate how the Petitioner's 
particular endeavor to provide consulting services within the industry is of national importance or 
demonstrate that his consultancy company will impact the United States at a national level. 
4 An appeal must specifically identity any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
5 See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca. 480 U.S. 421,431 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance 
of an occurrence taking place). 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor has significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for the nation. 
Specifically, he has not shown that his business activity stands to provide substantial economic 
benefits to Florida or to the United States. Neither the professional plan nor the Impact Analysis 
clarify how the anticipated creation of 15 in-house jobs would have substantial positive economic 
effects in Florida or in the other states in which he intends to provide consultancy services. Financial 
forecasts predict a gross revenue of $1,093,323 and payroll costs of $889,827 in the fifth year of the 
company's operation. These and other projections in the business plan, however, are not accompanied 
by an explanation of the origins of the figures used in their calculation; the business plan's projections 
are not supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the growth estimates 
forecasted. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376. Without sufficient information or evidence 
regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record 
does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's 
pursuits in aquaculture consultancy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Although the Petitioner asserts that his company will hire U.S. 
employees, he has not provided evidence to show that he would employ a significant population of 
workers in the region, or that his endeavor would offer the region or its population substantial 
economic benefits through employment levels, business activity, or tax revenue. Neither the business 
plan nor the remaining evidence in the record demonstrate that the Petitioner's endeavor to provide 
aquaculture consultancy services through operation of a small business in Florida rises to the level of 
national importance. The Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that his specific proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive 
economic effects for the United States. Id. at 890. He has not provided data or studies establishing 
that the location of his proposed endeavor is in an economically depressed area or how his business 
would impact the region. He has not provided evidence of similar successful business models or other 
comparable examples to demonstrate the potential broader implications of his proposal. One of the 
expert opinion letters cites a "lack of professional aquaculture specialists 6" in the United States and 
highlights the Petitioner's intention to "train new American professionals who wish to work in this 
promising area [of aquaculture engineering] through specialized techniques ." As stated above, 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. Id. at 893. Similarly, the 
record here does not establish that the Petitioner's role as an aquacultural engineering consultant would 
impact the industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to his employees and to the clients of 
his company. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor. 
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. Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the 
6 We note that the suggestion that labor certification requirements should be waived due to a talent shortage is not 
persuasive, as the purpose of the labor certification process is to identify jobs where there are no qualified, willing, and 
available U.S. workers. 
4 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework. 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 an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed endeavor has national importance. As the 
Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, he has not 
established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5