dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Audiovisual Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31679348 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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. 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 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 Christo '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, petitioners must 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. In addition, 
petitioners must show the merit of a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national 
interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 
provides that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant 
a national interest waiver if: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
I 
TI. ANALYSIS 
Regarding the national interest waiver, the first prong relates to substantial merit and national 
importance of the specific proposed endeavor. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner intends 
to "disseminate his vast knowledge of audiovisual methods in the U.S. market." He further indicated 
that his "focus will be on producing quality advertisements, films, and audio-visual content for 
companies that want to promote and qualify their brand through stories that promote engagement and 
represent their businesses." The Petitioner indicated that he would accomplish this through the 
creation and direction of his company. 
As it relates to substantial merit, the endeavor's merit may be shown in a range of areas such as 
business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. at 889. The Director determined the Petitioner established the substantial merit, but not the 
national importance, of the 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 specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
Although the Petitioner contends that his business plans discussed the importance of marketing and 
advertising, the matter here is not whether the topics of marketing and advertising, or similarly related 
subjects, are nationally important. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of 
his specific, proposed endeavor of providing his services through his audiovisual company in the 
I Florida area. Likewise, his submission of "supporting articles and research about industry 
trends, foreign investment, small businesses, video production, and advocacy" covers a wide range of 
topics rather than establishing the national importance of his particular professional services or 
business.2 
In Dhanasar, we 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. 
The Petitioner also notes the submission of his letters that discussed the impact of his work in the field. 
Although the letters discuss the Petitioner's particular services to each respective writer, the letters do 
not show the broader impact of the Petitioner's work rather than limited to his specific clients, who 
employ him for his services. Moreover, the letters cover the Petitioner's prior work and 
accomplishments and relate more to the second prong rather than the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Id. at 890. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement, 
we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of the work. Id. at 889. Here, 
2 The Petitioner's arguments and evidence relate to the substantial merit aspect of the proposed endeavor rather than the 
national importance part. 
2 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his business would largely influence the field and rise to the 
level of national importance. In Dhanasar, we determined 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. The record does not show through supporting documentation how his endeavor sufficiently 
extends beyond his prospective clients or employees, to impact the field or the U.S. economy more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, while he provided a business plan for the proposed company, the Petitioner did not present 
any supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how his business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or 
plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for our nation. Although the business plan forecasts sales from $432K in year 1 to 
$ l .026M in year 5, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of this data to show that the benefits 
to the regional or national economy would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" 
contemplated by Dhanasar. Id. at 890. Similarly, even though the business plan claims the creation 
of 10 total positions by year five, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relevance of these numbers 
and show that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the I 
Florida region or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not establish that such employment figures would utilize a significant 
population of workers in the area or would substantially impact job creation and economic growth, 
either regionally or nationally. For all these reasons, the record does not demonstrate that, beyond the 
limited benefits provided to its prospective clients and employees, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
has broader implications rising to the level of having national importance or that it would offer 
substantial positive economic effects. 
Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. Further analysis ofthe Petitioner's eligibility under 
the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the 
requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
3 See INS v. Bagamashad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
3 
I