dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automobile Restoration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 8, 2023 In Re: 263 79657 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who restores automobile interiors, seeks 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. 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 the 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first show eligibility 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. 
Once a petitioner demonstrates EB-2 eligibility, 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 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver pet1t10ns. Dhanasar states that 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 only stated ground for denial is that the Petitioner has not established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner claims to have earned a bachelor's degree in 2007, and a master's degree in 2009, both 
in the field of industrial design. The Petitioner stated that, in Brazil, he was "employed as a 
researcher," "working ... in development of new techniques in interior and exterior car restoration." 
The Petitioner arrived in the United States in 2017 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, and chan,ed status 
that same year to that of an F-1 student in order to study English at a language school in I 
Florida. He filed the petition in November 2019. In IJuly 202( after obtaining employment 
authorization, the Petitioner established his own business in 
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 dete1mining 
whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. 
At the time he filed the petition, the Petitioner provided few details about his proposed endeavor except 
to say that it would involve "[r]estoration, monitoring and improving the design of a car, bringing it 
to it's [sic] former glory." He added: "I have developed a new technic [sic] imaging modality which 
significantly reduces costs and beauty to a golden hammer." The meaning of this passage is not clear, 
and the Petitioner did not explain the relevance of "a new . . . imaging modality" to the field of 
automobile interior restoration. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a business plan and other 
information about his newly established Florida business. The Petitioner indicated that his business 
would have an impact through job creation and other economic activity, such as interactions with 
suppliers and clients such as car dealers. The Petitioner submitted background evidence about 
entrepreneurship and small businesses. However, the Petitioner must establish the national importance 
of his specific proposed endeavor. The overall, collective importance of all U.S. small businesses 
does not show the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed work with his company. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to "show that the 
company's staffing levels, business activity, and sales stand to provide substantial positive economic 
benefits to the region where it will operate (Florida) or the United States." 
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). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
[The Petitioner] is a respected leader among his contemporaries and within his field, 
and I believe he will provide his much-needed services as an entrepreneur and general 
and operations manager in the manufacturing industry within the United States.... 
[The Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers 
and has other substantial positive economic effects, especially in economically 
depressed areas of the United States. He will use his experience in purchase, product, 
and customer service to help small and medium-sized enterprises in the U.S. improve 
operations and achieve better productivity and profitability levels .... [H]e would bring 
jobs to an economically depressed area of the country, where employment 
opportunities are few and far in between .... His vast experience in the field ofbusiness 
and entrepreneurship will significantly contribute to the nation's economy by 
optimizing resources, increasing productivity, reducing costs, and generating revenue. 
These are general statements, for which the Petitioner cites no evidentiary support. For instance, the 
Petitioner does not cite any source for the assertion that his business will operate in "an economically 
depressed area of the country." The Petitioner does not explain how his ownership of a small 
automobile restoration business will significantly benefit "the manufacturing industry within the 
United States" or help other businesses "improve operations and achieve better productivity and 
profitability levels." Such claims have minimal weight without more details explaining the specific 
benefits, and showing how the evidence of record supports those claims. 
In terms of job creation, the business plan in the record indicates that the company plans to employ 
six workers, including the Petitioner, at the end of its fifth year of operations. The Petitioner did not 
establish that this level of employment produces economic benefits to a degree consistent with the 
Dhanasar national interest test. Likewise, the Petitioner did not show that his company's purchase of 
raw materials and services provided to customers such as car dealerships have an economic impact 
beyond the local level. 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of the proposed endeavor. Because the petition cannot be approved without a showing of 
national importance, this determination is sufficient to dismiss the appeal as a matter of discretion. 
Therefore, we reserve argument on the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make 
findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-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). 
The record also contains several discrepancies. For example: 
• Letters submitted with the petition refer to technology seemingly more suited to astronautics 
than to automobile interior restoration, such as pixel detectors and "an actual space dosimeter 
used at ISS" (the International Space Station). The Petitioner asserted that one of the letters is 
from a "Top Brazilian Aerospace Company." The Petitioner did not explain how aerospace 
technology is relevant to his proposed endeavor of automobile interior restoration. 
3 
• One of the above-mentioned letters is from an individual who identified himself as a "Producer 
and Reasercher" (sic) inl IFlorida, with the PBS station l I But I I is based in 
California, not in Florida, and the individual did not provide supporting evidence to corroborate 
his claim to work fou I 
• The Petitioner initially stated: "I am employed as a researcher by .. -1 I 
I I His jnjtjall submission included a 2017 letter attributed to an official of 'II _' indicating that the Beneficiary worked for the company "for these last 
5 years." The Petitioner's response to the RFE included a different claimed employment 
histo , indicatin that he worked as a "store and craftsman manager" for '1 ] 
1--------,-------------' from 2005 to 2015, and as a contractor for •I I 
~--~' from 2015 to 2017. The Petitioner also submitted copies of Brazilian government 
documents, indicating that the Petitioner established a company named after himself in 2014, 
which operated under the trade name 'I I" 
An immigrant petition cannot properly be approved unless the petitioner shows that the facts claimed 
in the petition are true. See section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
This is particularly important because many key assertions in the record lack first-hand, documentary 
corroboration. For example, the Petitioner claims to have had "long-term contracts" with several 
automobile manufacturers in Brazil, but the record does not include copies of those contracts. Such 
documentation would have carried significantly more weight than after-the-fact statements from 
individuals who claim, without evidence, to have personal knowledge of the Petitioner's past 
employment. These factors would be relevant in a second prong analysis of whether the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance his specific proposed endeavor. However, we need not reach a full 
discussion here, as the Petitioner has not established that he meets the national importance element of 
the first prong. 
Because the record contains contradictory information about material information such as the 
Petitioner's employment history, and key assertions are uncorroborated by first-hand, objective 
evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that the material 
facts claimed in the petition are true, as required by section 204(b) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown eligibility for the national interest waiver, and we will dismiss the appeal as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4