dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Audiovisual Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 22, 2024 In Re: 31035048 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the audiovisual production field, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested 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. An 
advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
above that of a bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree 
followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Once 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." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar , 26 l&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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, but further 
concluded she did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar 
framework. For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility 
under the Dhanasar framework and will dismiss the appeal. 
The first Dhanasar 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. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In determining whether the proposed endeavor has 
national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We agree with the Director's 
conclusion that the proposed endeavor intended to market small and medium-sized businesses has 
substantial merit. Id. However, while the Petitioner has established that the proposed endeavor has 
substantial merit, the record does not show it has national importance. 
The Petitioner intended to operate her own company in the United States to assist minority-owned, 
small and medium-sized businesses to plan, design, and coordinate commercial and audiovisual 
projects and products. With a particular focus on businesses operating in areas designated by the 
Internal Revenue Services (IRS) as opportunity zones, the Petitioner aimed to increase the her 
customers' sales "through the use of high-quality audiovisual content as a tool to improve their reach 
and positioning in the local and national market." To do this, the Petitioner proposed to offer several 
services through her company, including audiovisual content planning and production, post­
production support (including editing and the creation of special effects and graphics), as well as 
coaching and training in project management for the creation of audiovisual content on different digital 
platforms. In support of her endeavor, the Petitioner initially submitted a personal statement, a five­
year business plan, and several articles, fact sheets, government publications discussing multiple 
federal initiatives aimed at promoting and developing small and medium-sized businesses, and the 
impact of these businesses to regional and national economies. The Petitioner also provided 
recommendation letters detailing her expertise in filmmaking, storytelling, audiovisual content 
creation, and project management for large-scale audiovisual projects, as well as evidence of the 
awards she received for her films. 2 
1 See 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 USCTS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
2 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence contained in the record individually, we have reviewed and considered 
each one. 
2 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted two additional 
personal statements summarizing her plans for her company and the claimed national importance of 
her endeavor, along with additional articles and government fact sheets, including the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) Strategic Plan for 2022 - 2026. In her new statements, the Petitioner 
elaborated on her plans to market her services to minority-owned businesses in underserved areas to 
help her customers "strengthen their marketing networks, marketing strategies, and online presence to 
open [them] to new markets ... [and] increase their sales, productivity, sustainability, generate new 
jobs, and contribute to the revitalization and strengthening of the economy." The Petitioner also 
asserted that she would "participate in local and national events where [she] can transmit [her] 
experience, knowledge, and progress of [her] projects at conferences, fairs and academic events to 
motivate and empower young talents ... [ and] disseminate [her] knowledge, methodologies, and the 
innovative marketing strategies [she] develop[s]." Moreover, the Petitioner reasoned that, because the 
federal government recognizes the significance of developing small and medium-sized businesses, and 
particularly the success of minority-owned businesses, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor targeting 
these enterprises was of national importance. 
While acknowledging the evidence submitted, the Director concluded that the record did not establish 
the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor because the prospective impact of her endeavor 
would not sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to lead to broader implications to the 
industry or field. Moreover, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that her 
endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive 
economic effects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly consider the evidence on record, 
imposed novel requirements, and showed a "misunderstanding and misapplication of [the] law that 
[went] beyond harmless error and reach[ed] the levels of abuse of discretion." As an example of this, 
the Petitioner points to the Director's conclusions that her "business plan d[id] not provide evidence 
to substantiate the projected rate of growth, nor d[id] it demonstrate the proposed endeavor offers 
benefits which extend beyond the community to impact the industry," and "the record d[id] not contain 
sufficient evidence to reflect that [ ... ] it would employ a significant population of workers in the area." 
The Petitioner contends that these two Director conclusions imposed novel requirements because the 
Director did not consider the prospective impact of the endeavor and seemingly mandated a "baseline" 
number of employees to be hired, not specifically required under the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon de novo review, we disagree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director misapplied the law 
or otherwise abused their discretion. First, the Director did not require the Petitioner to substantiate 
that her company would meet the rate of growth, but rather establish the basis for the projected rate 
of growth. The Petitioner does not explain how the Director erred in their analysis of the limited 
impact of the proposed endeavor to the industry. While it is true that the Dhanasar framework does 
not require the Petitioner to establish that her endeavor is more likely than not to meet her projected 
rate of growth, unsubstantiated claims are not sufficient to establish national importance. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f­
chapter-5. Likewise, the Director did not require the Petitioner to establish that her endeavor would 
employ a "baseline" number of employees or "employ a significant population of workers in the area," 
but only discussed this as one way the Petitioner could have shown the economic impact of her 
endeavor as "significant." See Dhanasar at 889. In the same section quoted by the Petitioner, the 
3 
Director also noted the record did not show that her endeavor "would offer the region or its population 
a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, business activity, trade, or related tax 
revenue." Thus, the decision reflects that the Director considered multiple ways the Petitioner could 
have established the claimed substantial economic impact of her endeavor. So, the Petitioner's 
assertion that the Director "impos[ ed] a previously unseen ... novel or otherwise undefined and 
arbitrary requirement" is without merit. Furthermore, the Director did not focus exclusively on the 
claimed economic benefits of the Petitioner's endeavor when evaluating its national importance, they 
also considered the prospective impact of her endeavor to the audiovisual production field. 
The Petitioner also relies on Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) to support her 
assertion that the Director erred in failing to consider all the evidence in its totality. But the court in 
Buletini did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence presented to determine 
whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility, nor does the Buletini decision suggest that USCIS 
abuses its discretion if it does not provide individualized analysis for each piece of evidence. When 
USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, it will not be required to specifically address 
each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner 
presents. See, e.g., Ren v. USCIS, 60 F.4th 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2023) ("[S]o long as [USCIS] has given 
reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address 
specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented." 
(cleaned up)); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board of 
Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on every contention"). 
Turning to our review of the record, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish, by 
a preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner's proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance contemplated under the Dhanasar framework. In Dhanasar we said that, in determining 
national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in 
which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Dhanasar at 889. We therefore "look for broader implications" of the 
proposed endeavor, noting 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 
On appeal, the Petitioner continues to rely primarily on governmental interest in the success of small 
and medium-sized businesses to bolster the national importance of her proposed endeavor, but notably 
does not address the Director's conclusion that she did not establish how the broader implications of 
her endeavor would extend beyond her immediate customers to otherwise impact the field. For 
example, the Petitioner states that the Director erred in not acknowledging the articles and industry 
reports discussing various government initiatives aimed at helping small businesses, including the U.S. 
SBA's report stating that small businesses represent 99% of U.S. businesses, employ 46% of U.S. 
workers, and account for 33% of U.S. exports. However, this assertion by the Petitioner is relevant to 
the substantial merit of her endeavor, not its national importance. She does not provide support for 
her assertion that the "provided articles indeed demonstrate an interest from the United States in 
harnessing the Petitioner's knowledge and expertise." The articles do not discuss the Petitioner's work 
or her proposed endeavor. We acknowledge the Petitioner contends that the government initiatives 
4 
discussed in the record have inspired her to seek out minority-owned, small and medium-sized 
businesses for her customer base. However, when considering the national importance of a proposed 
endeavor, the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish 
national importance, instead we focus on the broader implications of "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner has not 
shown the broader implications of her proposed endeavor, however admirable, rise to the level of 
national importance. In the same way teaching activities proposed by the petitioner in Dhanasar were 
not shown to have a broader impact on the field of STEM education, activities which only benefit the 
Petitioner's clients, like the offerings outlined in her business plan, would not have broader 
implications in the field. Id. at 893. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not corroborated her assertion that her participation in "conferences, fairs 
and academic events" would result in the dissemination of "methodologies [ and] innovative marketing 
strategies" at a level commiserate with national importance. For example, the record does not establish 
what, if any, innovative marketing strategies the Petitioner will introduce to the field, nor the 
conferences she planned to target, as necessary for us to evaluate the broader impact of her prospective 
presentations. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field 
have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) 
(holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications). 
In addition, while we recognize that the Petitioner has had a successful career developing audiovisual 
content in both the artistic and marketing spaces, a petitioner's expertise and record of success are 
considerations under Dhanasar' s second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. Likewise, the testimonial evidence in the record, such 
as the recommendation letters, and letters of intent, do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond commenting on her expertise. 
Finally, the Petitioner's claim that her endeavor is nationally important because of her intent to work 
and serve economically distressed communities designated as opportunity zones by the IRS is not 
persuasive. Although any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact a local 
economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from her 
proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. First, as the Petitioner does not 
have a physical location for her proposed business, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that her business will in fact in an IRS opportunity zone. Likewise, the record does not support the 
Petitioner's claim that her endeavor "will have broad positive impact by helping boost economic 
prosperity in underutilized business zones and ensur[e] employment opportunities in underserved 
communities." In the business plan, the Petitioner indicated that by the fifth year of operations she 
anticipates her company will have an annual revenue of $525,803 and an annual federal tax payment 
of $11,490. She also indicated that by year five, she intends to employ five full-time employees with 
a payroll expense of$202,754 annually. However, as discussed previously, the business plan provides 
little explanation and objective basis of these projections. Even if the endeavor's revenue and job 
creation projections were sufficiently corroborated, they do not establish that the endeavor would 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained and supported with documentary evidence how her proposed employment numbers and 
revenue would impact the area of intended operations. 
5 
For all the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's eligibility and appellate arguments under 
Dhanasar's second and third prongs. See INS v Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reached"); 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6