dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Audiovisual Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 34272263 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
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 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 Petitioner did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief arguing that the AAO failed to adequately consider all 
evidence submitted on appeal and before the Director. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on our precedent decision in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The 
Petitioner contends that our decision strayed from the requirements of Dhanasar by imposing 
"standards and requirements not found or grounded in the precedent law." The Petitioner also argues 
that Buletini v.INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), was improperly addressed in our prior 
decision, as both the Director's decision and our decision on appeal omitted consideration of evidence 
"not only individually but also collectively." In tum, the Petitioner contends that this "omission led 
both bodies to make an arbitrary and unjustified decision, thereby committing an abuse of discretion." 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that our decision did not consider the impact or the significant 
potential to employ US workers outlined in the endeavor, and instead appeared to demand a specific 
number of jobs. The Petitioner argues that this also demonstrates a failure to fully consider all 
evidence, particularly data that was contained in the business plan. The Petitioner concludes that she 
has shown "that there is more than just basic economic activity, which in the AAO's own words in 
this case, impacts a local economy," thereby meeting the national importance standard. 
The Petitioner also claims that our decision did not adequately consider articles and government 
communications regarding the importance of minority-owned small businesses; the Petitioner 
contends that it was error to treat these articles as indicative of the proposed endeavor's substantial 
merit but not consider them as demonstrative of the endeavor's national importance. Overall, the 
Petitioner asserts that "the language contained within the AAO Decision suggests that the assessment 
of the appeal was undertaken with a similar level of lack of discretion due to the imposition of 
standards and requirements not found or grounded in the precedent law." 
After review, we conclude that our prior decision correctly applied the Dhanasar framework in 
assessing the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, 
we see no evidence that our decision imposed novel standards or requirements. The Petitioner implies 
that we based our analysis on a requirement that a particular number of workers be employed, but our 
prior decision imposes no such requirement. Rather, our decision explained that the Director had 
evaluated prospective impact in various ways, including employment of workers, tax or business 
activity, as well as the potential to impact the audiovisual production field more broadly. We 
ultimately agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not adequately outlined the basis for the 
prospective economic growth or otherwise demonstrated an impact extending beyond her immediate 
clientele. While the Petitioner may disagree with our decision in this case, she has not demonstrated 
an incorrect application of law or policy underpinned our determination. 
The Petitioner's assertion that we incorrectly analyzed the proffered articles relating to small 
businesses and economic work by minority-owned companies is also unfounded. The Petitioner 
contends that this evidence was submitted to show the national importance of her endeavor, not only 
to show its substantial merit. These articles outline general government support for a broad range of 
businesses activities that could include the Petitioner's proposed work. With respect to substantial 
merit, Dhanasar indicates that "an endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism" and other areas, but nonetheless highlights that the analysis "focuses on 
the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
at 889. In considering national importance, Dhanasar directs us to consider the potential prospective 
impacts, again of the specific endeavor, which may include advances in a field, "significant potential 
to employ U.S. workers," or other "broader implications." Id. at 889-90. The proffered articles are 
not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor related to audiovisual entrepreneurship. 
2 
The Petitioner also argues that we necessarily omitted evidence in the record from our analysis, as we 
did not specifically analyze her intention to work in opportunity zones in the Iarea or cite other 
data from her business plan. 1 The Petitioner contends that this information allows her to satisfy the 
Dhanasar precedent for national importance, as she would be providing "substantial positive 
economic effects .. .in an economically depressed area." However, our prior decision did consider this 
evidence, ultimately concluding that the proposal was insufficiently detailed or supported to 
demonstrate that any impacts would necessarily be felt in an economically depressed area to an extent 
consistent with national importance. 
The Petitioner indicated that she would "help increase the productivity of small businesses located in 
the opportunity zone ... through training in project management and the creation of high-quality 
audiovisual content." Our appeal decision acknowledged this intent, but found it insufficiently 
persuasive, as she lacked a physical location for the business and had not sufficiently demonstrated 
that the work would be carried out in an IRS opportunity zone. The Petitioner claims that these 
concerns would have necessarily been resolved with a review of the Petitioner's business plan, as the 
plan indicated the "market segmentation and sectors that the petitioner's work would benefit" and that 
the work would be carried out in statistically defined opportunity zones. However, while we have 
reviewed the record and agree that the Petitioner made such assertions, our decision rested on a lack 
of adequate foundation and support for these claims. We appreciate that the Petitioner disagrees with 
our analysis of this record evidence, but she has not demonstrated that we omitted or ignored this 
evidence from consideration such that our decision was incorrect. 
The Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, instead relying 
on the previous record. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 
Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In the motion brief, the Petitioner claims that the AAO decision indicated that we were "not required to review every 
piece of evidence." This is a misstatement of our appeal decision; we instead indicated that we were not required to provide 
an individualized written analysis for each piece of evidence in the record. As we indicated on appeal, the record was 
reviewed in its entirety in reaching the final determination. 
3